Roger Penrose on Gödel's theorum and consciousness #shorts

Roger Penrose on what he thinks the implications of Gödel's theorum are for consciousness. Part of a panel discussion on Bletchley Park.

[haros]

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).

[hihello-sxsx]

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.

[nolanr]

Computation is not intelligence. AI is just an oxymoron

[iftikharshafia]

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.

[saftheartist]

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).

[MarcVL]

The problem with this argument is that it ignores heuristics: pragmatic and informal shortcut approaches to "understanding" or knowing things, that either cannot be formally proven, or else would be prohibitively challenging to do so. Computers can be (and have been) programmed to identify things through heuristics.

[giuseppeales]

We as human, don’t learn nothing about history. Galileo Galilei himself was thought to be crazy for his theory’s. What I’m trying to say is that something can be so unbelievable today, but one day maybe can be proved scientifically. You have to give him the benefit of the doubt, even more because of the person that is saying that.

[adayah]

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.

[Jihad_Bung_kai]

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

[ejenkins]

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

[das.gegenmittel]

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.

[poetryforthesoul]

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..!!

[pianoraves]

What in the world is he actually saying here, can someone break this down?

[That_Freedom_Guy]

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

[kevinpusceddu]

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.

[beinganangeltreon]

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.