Consciousness is Not a Computation (Roger Penrose) | AI Podcast Clips

Roger Penrose talked about this with Lex Fridman. The anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff is looking into how anesthesia affects microtubules and the implications for consciousness. Penrose is intrigued by the symmetry of microtubules and the possibility for this symmetry to enable quantum coherence to be accessible biologically. His larger point is that consciousness is not a computation. ▶ this video Relevant part starts around 3:30.

in “Under anesthesia, where do our minds go?” · View on HN

Consciousness is Not a Computation (Roger Penrose) | AI Podcast Clips ▶ this video Full episode: [link] I don't take Roger's view about consciousness for granted but it is very interesting nevertheless.

in “Ask HN: Best Talks of 2020?” · View on HN

I think it was on this site that someone posted the very interesting perspectives on consciousness by Roger Penrose.[2] From that I found this video by Dr. Stuart Hameroff, M.D.: Microtubules & quantum consciousness.[1] Higly recommended. [1]: [link] [2]: ▶ this video

in “A man who can read letters but not numbers exposes roots of consciousness” · View on HN

The question is answered in the full title: > "Gödel's theorem debunks the most important AI myth. AI will not be conscious" Same statement from Penrose here with Lex Friedman: "Consciousness is Not a Computation" [1]. [1] ▶ this video

in “Gödel's theorem debunks the most important AI myth – Roger Penrose [video]” · View on HN

The question is whether consciousness is computable. Can a Turing machine be conscious? Probably not. [link] ▶ this video

in “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT-4” · View on HN

Randomly watched this yesterday ▶ this video where Roger Penrose argues that we're missing something fundamental about consciousness and his best bet is a structure called the microtubules. This talk reminded me of my own research into "AI" back in the 00's and that it's almost impossible to talk about AI since everybody has a different idea as to whay AI is, yes i know there's a pretty good classification ANI, AGI, ASI but most people don't know about this and think of AI as a machine that thinks like conscious human. I'd argue that we've solved or at least partly solved the part of AI that has to do with neural nets. We're still some way off utilizing the full potential of neural nets since our hardware hasn't quite reached the capability of emulating even the simplest of complex animals. The thing is that Neural nets are probably only part of intelligence and creating bigger and more complex neural nets probably wont result in what most people consider AI but i guess there's still a chance it might. We might have to wait several years to find out since moors law is plateauing and neural chips are still in it's infancy. My best guess is that we'll solve "Intelligence" long before we solve consciousness and i think we're actually quite far along here. The best theory of intelligence i've read so far is Jeff Hawkins 1000 Brain Theory and i'm really looking forward to see how far it can go. The problem with this theory is that it's still missing the most critical component which is

in “Artificial Intelligence: The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet (2018)” · View on HN