Penrose, consciousness, incompleteness

Scott Aaronson wrote a very nice piece about consciousness and Quantum Mechanics. Actually, he’s just bashing some of Penrose‘s ideas about consciousness and the inability of machines to achieve it.

I personally dislike these ideas of Penroses or Searles (Such as the Chinese Room). I find that any logical proof regarding a computation machine must apply, by definition, to humans (the thought experiments such as the Chinese Room or the halting problem do not refer to a computer – they portray ideas inherent to any logic system).

If you think otherwise, it means you are assuming humans are beyond computers to begin with – and then no wonder you reach this conclusion eventually.


1 comment so far

  1. Danilo Bohnenblust on

    Throughout the awesome scheme of things you actually receive an A for hard work. Where you lost me personally was in the facts. You know, they say, the devil is in the details… And it couldn’t be more true right here. Having said that, let me inform you exactly what did give good results. Your article (parts of it) is certainly quite engaging and this is possibly the reason why I am making an effort in order to opine. I do not really make it a regular habit of doing that. Secondly, although I can certainly see the jumps in reasoning you make, I am not certain of exactly how you seem to connect your points that produce your conclusion. For right now I shall subscribe to your point but trust in the near future you actually link your dots better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: