Roger Penrose Struggling To Explain Consciousness

[The observer]

@Member That was not an attitude. It's a statement of truth, beyond all thoughts and attitudes.

To save you some time and trouble, be here with an open-mind, or you will be banned soon after wasting much of your time on pointless, yet fragile arguments.

[Member]

31 minutes ago, The observer said:

@Member To save you some time and trouble, be an echo chamber and repeat the same thing over and over again or you will be banned soon after wasting much of your time on pointless, yet fragile arguments.

Thank you for wasting my time. Now I'm gonna save you some time by stopping giving you the attention that you clearly don't deserve.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Member

[The observer]

Just now, Member said:

Thank you for wasting my time.

You're welcome.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Meta-Man Consciousness can still be primary even if certain arrangements in the physical world have the perceived properties of higher consciousness.  Brains obviously have higher consciousness than trees, even though neither exists outside of their own minds.  I guess the inanimate tree doesn't really have a mind.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Meta-Man 

45 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

Consciousness is not a product of physiology whether you are a tree or a human. Brains don’t create consciousness.

And Consciousness is never more or less. It is absolute, not relative. Maybe when you say ‘higher consciousness’ you mean ‘higher level of sentience’. ‘Sentience’ is a relative distinction/concept. Ultimately a human is no more alive than a rock

Consciousness controls brains that control consciousness.  If I am in a dream, I can imagine an object in the dream world that affects my consciousness.  This is what brains and psychedelics do in physical reality.  Give yourself a lobotomy, and you will no longer be anywhere close to enlightenment.  It's just a fact.

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Someone here said:

What if science manages to build robots with self awareness and Consciousness identical to our human awareness?

I expect that one day science WILL be able to build something close to that.

But this will be a very different science than the materialist science of today.

There is nothing in nonduality/spirituality which says that you cannot build a conscious robot. It should be possible, since "nature" builds conscious robots -- i.e., humans -- every day. But we are VERY far away from that.

Also keep in mind that there is a big difference between building a thing and understanding how it works. Today, humans are building complex AIs which are able to do amazing things like play chess or Go or driving a car. But humans have no idea how these AI actually perform their amazing feats. The neural network is so vastly complex that no human mind could ever untangle it. But we can build it.

A human mind is never going to be able to logically untangle something as complex as a human brain/mind. But I think it should be possible to build artificial minds. But probably not within the materialist paradigm.

[AtheisticNonduality]

@Leo Gura

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I expect that one day science WILL be able to build something close to that.

But this will be a very different science than the materialist science of today.

There is nothing in nonduality/spirituality which says that you cannot build a conscious robot. It should be possible, since "nature" builds conscious robots -- i.e., humans -- every day. But we are VERY far away from that.

Also keep in mind that there is a big difference between building a thing and understanding how it works. Today, humans are building complex AIs which are able to do amazing things like play chess or Go or driving a car. But humans have no idea how these AI actually perform their amazing feats. The neural network is so vastly complex that no human mind could ever untangle it. But we can build it.

A human mind is never going to be able to logically untangle something as complex as a human brain/mind. But I think it should be possible to build artificial minds.

Are you saying the people who program machine learning with chess bots don't actually understand how the processes are working?

[Javfly33]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I expect that one day science WILL be able to build something close to that.

But this will be a very different science than the materialist science of today.

There is nothing in nonduality/spirituality which says that you cannot build a conscious robot. It should be possible, since "nature" builds conscious robots -- i.e., humans -- every day. But we are VERY far away from that.

Also keep in mind that there is a big difference between building a thing and understanding how it works. Today, humans are building complex AIs which are able to do amazing things like play chess or Go or driving a car. But humans have no idea how these AI actually perform their amazing feats. The neural network is so vastly complex that no human mind could ever untangle it. But we can build it.

A human mind is never going to be able to logically untangle something as complex as a human brain/mind. But I think it should be possible to build artificial minds. But probably not within the materialist paradigm.

Why do you emphasize that not within the materialistic paradigm? Wouldn't they just be robots? Because it's not like consciousness is in the brain so we could just literally make one for robots and put it in there.

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

@Leo Gura

Are you saying the people who program machine learning with chess bots don't actually understand how the processes are working?

Of course they don't. Not at the level of knowing why each decision gets made.

They just create a neural net and let it wire itself. It's sort of like growing a brain in a lab. You can grow one, but you won't know how it them learns and knows what it knows. You won't be able to map all of the billions of connections it makes.

10 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

Why do you emphasize that not within the materialistic paradigm? Wouldn't they just be robots? Because it's not like consciousness is in the brain so we could just literally make one for robots and put it in there.

No, not just robots. They'd need to have ego-minds. And how do you create an ego mind? Science has no clue.

 

[Roy]

@Leo Gura I don't get the condescension. The guy said he was a maverick and is looking for more obscure theories within quantum mechanics to help understand the problem. Even if it's under the umbrella of science we would all still prefer to have that part of the puzzle contribute to our understanding regardless if it's perfectly complete, no?

You can't predict the future of course, so why so much, "science will never be able to solve consciousness because X" attitude going around?

Would you have the humility to admit that a radical scientific breakthrough in explaining consciousness (that possibly included meta-physics) might make you change or reconsider your own current understanding? Could there be anything that might make you go, "oh fuck, maybe I got too ahead of myself."

This isn't to say, "go back to choosing between a purely physical or purely meta-physical view", but rather to add it in to the holistic explanation.

I'm not a materialist btw, before you go off your rocker about that.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Roy

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I expect that one day science WILL be able to build something close to that.

But this will be a very different science than the materialist science of today.

There is nothing in nonduality/spirituality which says that you cannot build a conscious robot. It should be possible, since "nature" builds conscious robots -- i.e., humans -- every day. But we are VERY far away from that.

Also keep in mind that there is a big difference between building a thing and understanding how it works. Today, humans are building complex AIs which are able to do amazing things like play chess or Go or driving a car. But humans have no idea how these AI actually perform their amazing feats. The neural network is so vastly complex that no human mind could ever untangle it. But we can build it.

A human mind is never going to be able to logically untangle something as complex as a human brain/mind. But I think it should be possible to build artificial minds. But probably not within the materialist paradigm.

Wouldn't that be contradicting your perspective of " Consciousness is irreducibly mystical and it's not an emergent phenomenon from neurology and chemical reactions"?  Because if that's true I think it must follow that science can't ever create consciousness by playing with matter and arranging it together in specific ways (because the assumption is that Consciousness doesn't arise from matter anyways).  So I would say if they managed to create such robots that would be evidence that Consciousness is in fact just a byproduct of matter even if we don't totally understand how this happenes, 

[Jacobsrw]

@Leo Gura Haha oh no....He seems to fumble quite a bit. Sprouting ideas he has no sense in knowing. Credit to him for admitting in saying he didn’t really know.

Its fascinating that scientists insist on using the mind to try understand things beyond the mind, simultaneously not acknowledging how this is impossible.

@Someone here you undermine the fundamental nature of consciousness.

Your proposition is equivalent to asking if a rock could become conscious of being rock and identify as a human. It’s not really even a question to entertain.

Anything you propose is made of consciousness. You’re using consciousness to try and step outside of consciousness by pointing “hey look over here” when “over here” is no different to where you already stand.

Consciousness is not a suggestive possibility it’s fundamental and inescapable.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Leo Gura]

38 minutes ago, Roy said:

@Leo Gura I don't get the condescension. The guy said he was a maverick and is looking for more obscure theories within quantum mechanics to help understand the problem. Even if it's under the umbrella of science we would all still prefer to have that part of the puzzle contribute to our understanding regardless if it's perfectly complete, no?

You can't predict the future of course, so why so much, "science will never be able to solve consciousness because X" attitude going around?

Would you have the humility to admit that a radical scientific breakthrough in explaining consciousness (that possibly included meta-physics) might make you change or reconsider your own current understanding? Could there be anything that might make you go, "oh fuck, maybe I got too ahead of myself."

He speaks of consciousness as if it is a thing which can be turned on and off or created. This is just silly. It's a funadmental misunderstanding of consciousness.

I don't need to wait for 500 years for science to figure out what consciousness is. I have already figured it out, and so can you.

Consciousness can become fully conscious of itself. In fact, that's the only way. Science will never reach such a level of understanding because science is finite and consciousness is infinite.

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Wouldn't that be contradicting your perspective of " Consciousness is irreducibly mystical and it's not an emergent phenomenon from neurology and chemical reactions"?  Because if that's true I think it must follow that science can't ever create consciousness by playing with matter and arranging it together in specific ways (because the assumption is that Consciousness doesn't arise from matter anyways).  So I would say if they managed to create such robots that would be evidence that Consciousness is in fact just a byproduct of matter even if we don't totally understand how this happenes, 

You are confusing things.

Science will never create consciousness. Consciousness is always here. It doesn't need to be created. What science can do is manipulate consciousness. Which is what science has always done.

[Someone here]

@Leo Gura I get that Consciousness already exists and it doesn't need to be created in the sense it's gonna be created for the first time!  I mean in the sense being rendered or produced. 

If i understood you correct you mean they actually can make Conscious robots using Consciousness itself. They will use Consciousness to create just more Consciousness.!  A scientist might disagree because they think "brains and neurons" are not themselves Consciousness but rather Consciousness is just a byproduct of unconscious dumb matter.  Like water is a liquid that is emerging from nonliquid components (hydrogen and oxygen).  

[Leo Gura]

@Someone here If it is possible to create an embryo in a lab -- which it is -- that is already science creating a conscious being, so to speak. Science could possibly do a similar thing but with inorganic "matter".

[Someone here]

16 minutes ago, Jacobsrw said:

@Leo Gura

@Someone here you undermine the fundamental nature of consciousness.

Your proposition is equivalent to asking if a rock could become conscious of being rock and identify as a human. It’s not really even a question to entertain.

Anything you propose is made of consciousness. You’re using consciousness to try and step outside of consciousness by pointing “hey look over here” when “over here” is no different to where you already stand.

Consciousness is not a suggestive possibility it’s fundamental and inescapable.

That's indeed a very serious epistemological problem. We can't step outside what we already know. You can't even conceive of something outside of your own perceptions because no matter what you do you are still inside it.  Only after you wake up from the dream you can discover something beyond the dream phenomenon itself. It only happens in retrospect. You don't know what you don't know untill you know lol. That's how knowledge works! 

[Roy]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He speaks of consciousness as if it is a thing which can be turned on and off or created. This is just silly. It's a funadmental misunderstanding of consciousness.

@Leo Gura Isn't it being turned on and off in the relative sense of being (literally) awake/asleep and then eventually in the ultimate sense alive/dead?

Is the misunderstanding making the distinction between the consciousness of humans/living things and the Consciousness of the Universe/God? A duality that of course has to collapse in the big picture.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Roy

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Someone here If it is possible to create an embryo in a lab -- which it is -- that is already science creating a conscious being, so to speak. Science could possibly do a similar thing but with inorganic "matter".

I think the difference between you and what science thinks of Consciousness is that you think it's all Consciousness. Even apparently unconscious matter is Consciousness. Whereas scientists think that there is the dumb unconscious stuff on one side and then you have the Consciousness stuff on the other side which arises from the unconsciousness stuff. 

The conflict is because your definition of Consciousness is "existence itself" whereas scientists define it as "perception of existence".  

 

[Jacobsrw]

@Someone here Exactly right. Epistemically speaking, for what you know to be known you must first enter the state of “not knowing” to know it.

We don’t ever step outside of our perceptual experience because it was never real to begin with. Just like the mirage of water in the desert. There’s the illusion it exists but it turns out to be just the desert itself. Just like our human experience. It feels like we exist as a human body-mind but it turns out it was just consciousness itself.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[Razorback]

Look at Megamind over here comparing Roger Penrose to a retarded child. Very big brain*, much enlightened.

*imaginary brain of course, brains aren't real dummy!