The Theory Of Everything
May. 25th, 2015 12:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jazzy_daveAfter watching the film on Sky this evening of The Theory Of Everything i might now tackle the book i have in my collection The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, which happens to be a 1,099-page book aimed at giving a comprehensive guide to the laws of physics. Phew!
Or his other one i have, The Emperor's New Mind , in which he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. He proposes the characteristics that this new physics may have and specifies the requirements for a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics (what he calls correct quantum gravity). Penrose uses a variant of Turing's halting theorem to demonstrate that a system can be deterministic without being algorithmic.
(For example, imagine a system with only two states, ON and OFF. If the system's state is ON when a given Turing machine halts and OFF when the Turing machine does not halt, then the system's state is completely determined by the machine; nevertheless, there is no algorithmic way to determine whether the Turing machine stops.)
Penrose believes that such deterministic yet non-algorithmic processes may come into play in the quantum mechanical wave function reduction, and may be harnessed by the brain. He argues that the present computer is unable to have intelligence because it is an algorithmically deterministic system. He argues against the viewpoint that the rational processes of the mind are completely algorithmic and can thus be duplicated by a sufficiently complex computer. This contrasts with supporters of strong artificial intelligence, who contend that thought can be simulated algorithmically. He bases this on claims that consciousness transcends formal logic because things such as the insolubility of the halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem prevent an algorithmically based system of logic from reproducing such traits of human intelligence as mathematical insight.
Or his other one i have, The Emperor's New Mind , in which he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. He proposes the characteristics that this new physics may have and specifies the requirements for a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics (what he calls correct quantum gravity). Penrose uses a variant of Turing's halting theorem to demonstrate that a system can be deterministic without being algorithmic.
(For example, imagine a system with only two states, ON and OFF. If the system's state is ON when a given Turing machine halts and OFF when the Turing machine does not halt, then the system's state is completely determined by the machine; nevertheless, there is no algorithmic way to determine whether the Turing machine stops.)
Penrose believes that such deterministic yet non-algorithmic processes may come into play in the quantum mechanical wave function reduction, and may be harnessed by the brain. He argues that the present computer is unable to have intelligence because it is an algorithmically deterministic system. He argues against the viewpoint that the rational processes of the mind are completely algorithmic and can thus be duplicated by a sufficiently complex computer. This contrasts with supporters of strong artificial intelligence, who contend that thought can be simulated algorithmically. He bases this on claims that consciousness transcends formal logic because things such as the insolubility of the halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem prevent an algorithmically based system of logic from reproducing such traits of human intelligence as mathematical insight.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-05-25 12:41 am (UTC)Hugs, Jon
no subject
Date: 2015-05-25 01:01 am (UTC)However, he also takes Searle's Chinese Room seriously as an argument, which pretty much shows his desperation.
no subject
Date: 2015-05-25 02:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-05-25 08:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-05-25 03:40 am (UTC)*HUGS*
no subject
Date: 2015-05-25 04:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-05-25 02:31 pm (UTC)But I was discussing this with hubby and I think we agree - when we know so little about our own minds, how they work and what creates thought itself - how can we foster the same in the machines we create?