Shadows Of The Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness
- Downloads：5667
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-04-10 14:52:59
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Roger Penrose
- ISBN：0099582112
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
‘One of the most important works…of the twentieth century’ The Times
Shadows of the Mind is a profound exploration of what modern physics has to tell us about the human mind。
A visionary description of what a new physics - one that is adequate to account for our extraordinary brain - might look like。 It is also a bold speculation on the biological process that makes consciousness what it is。
In this illuminating book Penrose provides powerful arguments to support his conclusion that there is something in the conscious activity of the brain that transcends computation – something that can’t be explained by present-day science。
Shadows of the Mind is a profound exploration of what modern physics has to tell us about the human mind。
A visionary description of what a new physics - one that is adequate to account for our extraordinary brain - might look like。 It is also a bold speculation on the biological process that makes consciousness what it is。
In this illuminating book Penrose provides powerful arguments to support his conclusion that there is something in the conscious activity of the brain that transcends computation – something that can’t be explained by present-day science。
Reviews
Mariela Stancheva
，
Да четеш книга написана от Роджър Пенроуз е изключително преживяване。 Представете си сложността и абстрактността на квантовата теория。 Представихте ли си го？ Е， сега си представете， че човек， който е в състояние да вникне в детайли в цялата математика на комплексния анализ （която съпътства квантовата теория） и в цялата математика на тензорното смятане （която съпътства теорията на относителността） и дори лично е развил някои от тези математически дялове， ви обяснява какво го смущава в квантовата Да четеш книга написана от Роджър Пенроуз е изключително преживяване。 Представете си сложността и абстрактността на квантовата теория。 Представихте ли си го？ Е， сега си представете， че човек， който е в състояние да вникне в детайли в цялата математика на комплексния анализ （която съпътства квантовата теория） и в цялата математика на тензорното смятане （която съпътства теорията на относителността） и дори лично е развил някои от тези математически дялове， ви обяснява какво го смущава в квантовата теория。 Защото точно това се случва във втората част на книгата。 Както казах - изключително преживяване。 Започнах с втората част， защото там е разковничето， което Роджър Пенроуз счита， че ще ни открехне вратата към един въпрос， който касае цялата книга - въпросът за това що е то съзнание и къде точно се случва。 Първата част обаче е не по-малко вълнуваща。 В нея се поставя въпросът， който днес е на дневен ред - изчислимо ли е осъзнаването。 С други думи доколко един хипотетичен компютър （например много бърз и с много памет） би могъл на осъзнае нещо。 За тази цел Роджър Пенроуз стъпва на теоремата на Гьодел и разглежда 4 основни хипотези， наречени А，Б，В，Г。 Според хипотеза А， съзнанието е изчислимо。 Според хипотеза Б， съзнанието не е изчислимо， но не съществува начин да бъде отличено от достатъчно сложен алгоритъм。 Според хипотеза В， съзнанието не е изчислимо， но може да бъде научно изследвано。 То обаче не е продукт на завършващ алгоритмичен процес。 Според хипотеза Г， съзнанието не е изчислимо и не подлежи на научно изследване。 В своята книга Роджър Пенроуз защитава хипотеза В。 Като страничен резултат на това， следва че изкуствен интеленкт базиран на компютри не може да съществува。 С това завършва първата част и започва втората - а именно， ако съзнанието се случва някъде в мозъка， а мозъкът е материя и следователно може да се изследва с методите на физиката， то как и какво е съзнанието。 И тук следва една забележителна история за квантови сплитания и чехълчета。 И една липсваща теория （не случайно подзаглавието на книгата е "В търсене на липсващата наука за съзнанието"） - теорията на материята。 Според Роджър Пенроуз， квантовата физика все още не е достигнала познанието на материята от което се нуждаем за да разберем съзнанието。 Но има идея къде да търсим。 По-точно къде да търсят теоретичните физици。 Прави аналогия с Нютоновата теория на гравитацията， която изключително прецизно е описвала наблюдаваните при експерименти данни и Айнщайновата теория на относителността， която прави качествен скок в разбирането ни за пространството。 Той очаква същото да се случи с квантовата физика， която сега изключително прецизно описва експерименталните данни， но не ни отговаря на въпроса какво всъщност е материята。В книгата има много препратки към "Новият разум на царя: За компютрите， разума и законите на физиката"。Накратко - по-добра от фантастичен роман:） 。。。more
Todd Pinchevsky
，
Could not make it through this book。
Eric Layton
，
I probably would have given Penrose' book a 5-Star review were it not for the fact that a good third of the book was WAY over my head due to the heavy mathematics involved。 However， I did grasp the basic concepts and arguments of the book， so 4-Stars will be OK。Warning， though。。。 this book has some heavy math in it。 You can skim most of that and still understand what this man is trying to get across， though， so don't let this warning scare you off。 I probably would have given Penrose' book a 5-Star review were it not for the fact that a good third of the book was WAY over my head due to the heavy mathematics involved。 However， I did grasp the basic concepts and arguments of the book， so 4-Stars will be OK。Warning， though。。。 this book has some heavy math in it。 You can skim most of that and still understand what this man is trying to get across， though， so don't let this warning scare you off。 。。。more
Atila Togay
，
Roger Penrose her zamanki titizliği ile konuyu en temellerinden ele alıyor ve önemli çıkarımlarda bulunuyor。 Penrose sadece başkalarının çalışmalarını derleyen bilim yazarlarından değil。 Önemli ve orijinal araştırmaları var。 Bu nedenle bir şey yazdığında okumadan geçmiyorum。Ne var ki dili problemli。 Kimi zaman cümleleri bir paragraf uzunluğunda ve üç beş kere okuyunca ancak anlayabiliyorum。 Yazdıklarını önemsediğim için dip notlara kadar okumaya kalkınca bir ayda ancak bitiyor kitap。 İyi tarafı Roger Penrose her zamanki titizliği ile konuyu en temellerinden ele alıyor ve önemli çıkarımlarda bulunuyor。 Penrose sadece başkalarının çalışmalarını derleyen bilim yazarlarından değil。 Önemli ve orijinal araştırmaları var。 Bu nedenle bir şey yazdığında okumadan geçmiyorum。Ne var ki dili problemli。 Kimi zaman cümleleri bir paragraf uzunluğunda ve üç beş kere okuyunca ancak anlayabiliyorum。 Yazdıklarını önemsediğim için dip notlara kadar okumaya kalkınca bir ayda ancak bitiyor kitap。 İyi tarafı ise şu : bazı detaylara girmek istemeyenlere hangi bölümleri atlayarak gidebileceklerini söylüyor。 Dolayısı ile ana fikri kaçırmadan ve bütünlüğü bozmadan okuyabilirsiniz。 Özetle içindeki fikirler ve çıkarımlar çok önemli， kitaplıkta mutlaka bulunmalı ve başvuru kitabı olarak kullanılmalı。 。。。more
Mathijs Aasman
，
A difficult read， I skipped most of the middle section owing to my undergraduate being in physics， and the middle section presents an introduction to quantum mechanics。 I read the initial chapters， which go over an argument for why consciousness is not mere computation。 THe final section goes over the possibility for microtubules to be units of neuronal processing， instead of the basic unit being the neuron， this greatly expands the computational capacity of the mind。Overall a speculative book， A difficult read， I skipped most of the middle section owing to my undergraduate being in physics， and the middle section presents an introduction to quantum mechanics。 I read the initial chapters， which go over an argument for why consciousness is not mere computation。 THe final section goes over the possibility for microtubules to be units of neuronal processing， instead of the basic unit being the neuron， this greatly expands the computational capacity of the mind。Overall a speculative book， and I noticed Penrose worked out a lot of this on his own， as the references section is shorter than many books of this type。 THis does present an interesting 'new' take on a topic which has been explored by others in such glancing depth。 。。。more
Tom Prosser
，
It’s a well written， easy to follow book on AI and the Godelian argument towards mechanism。 Penrose ultimately concludes that consciousness cannot be algorithmic， that brains are not Turing machines， and must be on a quantum level。 If you’re interested in AI it’s a good read， but the argument itself isn’t great， it’s got a lot of problems and the Godelian argument is widely viewed as unsatisfactory and invalid by the academic community so don’t take the book as accurate。If you want a good book o It’s a well written， easy to follow book on AI and the Godelian argument towards mechanism。 Penrose ultimately concludes that consciousness cannot be algorithmic， that brains are not Turing machines， and must be on a quantum level。 If you’re interested in AI it’s a good read， but the argument itself isn’t great， it’s got a lot of problems and the Godelian argument is widely viewed as unsatisfactory and invalid by the academic community so don’t take the book as accurate。If you want a good book on AI and similar arguments， just pick up Douglas Hofstadter’s Godel， Escher， Bach。2 stars as an academic work， 3 as a pop science book 。。。more
Yubal Masalker
，
This book is great feat of human logic。 It gives in a logical analysis why the human brain can't be a mere computational machine like computers。 The author， Sir Roger Penrose， who is an acclaimed mathematical physicist， asserts on the basis of Godel's incompleteness theorems， that our brain's perception is beyond the constraints dictated by these theorems （which are true for the mathematics and the algorithms operating in computers）。 We wouldn't be able to grasp the mathematical concepts and to This book is great feat of human logic。 It gives in a logical analysis why the human brain can't be a mere computational machine like computers。 The author， Sir Roger Penrose， who is an acclaimed mathematical physicist， asserts on the basis of Godel's incompleteness theorems， that our brain's perception is beyond the constraints dictated by these theorems （which are true for the mathematics and the algorithms operating in computers）。 We wouldn't be able to grasp the mathematical concepts and to formalize new concepts if our brains and consciousness would be confined by those theorems' constraints。 The author asserts that our brains operate by rules which require consideration of new Physics， particularly the Quantum Physics， in order to explain the rise of consciousness out of the brain。 He gives practical examples by using AI （Artificial Intelligence） to show why brains can't be just some extended AI。 Then he gives other practical examples from brain cells' basic structures to show how brains might use the mysterious principles of Quantum Physics to function and to having the abilities which surpass immensely the most advanced digital AI and that any digital AI wouldn't ever possess them in principle。 The drawback of this book is that it contains extensive mathematical-philosophy discussions centered around Godel's incompleteness theorems， using many symbols in those discussions。 The author himself advises most of the readers to omit such sections。 But even besides it， IMO， the author's language is not always so friendly for the average reader in his explanations and conclusions about those discussions above。 。。。more
Balkha
，
Since I run in the opposite direction when it comes to mathematics， this was a challenging read。 I skipped over entire sections in the book。 Despite this， there is some insight to be gained。 The author is a physicist after all so the language is not always simplified but his ideas to a large extent come through。 I probably didn't appreciate his arguments or the math he presents as well as someone with a stronger science background would but the book still makes a lot of interesting points to thi Since I run in the opposite direction when it comes to mathematics， this was a challenging read。 I skipped over entire sections in the book。 Despite this， there is some insight to be gained。 The author is a physicist after all so the language is not always simplified but his ideas to a large extent come through。 I probably didn't appreciate his arguments or the math he presents as well as someone with a stronger science background would but the book still makes a lot of interesting points to think about。 It was a difficult and slow read but I don't regret picking it up。 。。。more
C。T。 Phipps
，
The origins of consciousness are either an elusive mystery or something as painfully obvious as gravity。 For many years， I didn't really even know there was an issue of consciousness and just assumed it was a natural consequence of the brain （generator of the soul in my theistic view but still intrinsically linked）。 In fact， there's a huge feud going on among scientists and philosophers over why a bunch of electrical meat generates "you" and "me。" There's a number of theories ranging from the in The origins of consciousness are either an elusive mystery or something as painfully obvious as gravity。 For many years， I didn't really even know there was an issue of consciousness and just assumed it was a natural consequence of the brain （generator of the soul in my theistic view but still intrinsically linked）。 In fact， there's a huge feud going on among scientists and philosophers over why a bunch of electrical meat generates "you" and "me。" There's a number of theories ranging from the insane （"panpsychism"） to the boringly mundane （"neurons"） to the also insane but materialist （"there's no such thing as consciousness"）。Sir Roger Penrose， one of the smartest men alive， teams up with Doctor Stuart Hammeroff to offer their own version that consciousness is a product of quantum physics （"qubits" or quantum information） interacting with the microtubbles in the brain。 If that sounds like Greek to you and you're not Greek， it basically means consciousness exists as a product of physics rather than biology。 In more esoteric terms， it means consciousness is the result of quantum collapse between information states。 Schrodinger's Cat of the cat being both dead and alive is the basis for consciousness as our thoughts are the physical representation of those things coalescing into "yes， the cat is frigging dead。"This is a theory which absolutely INFURIATES all manner of neurologists and physicists who believe it is ludicrous。 Given the sheer volume of "quantum woo" （a。k。a pseudoscience）， this is a reasonable fear but for the fact Penrose is one of the smartest men on the planet and Stuart Hammeroff's claims have repeatedly ended up being validated。 Unfortunately， Hammeroff's claims have been somewhat tainted by his association with a bunch of very questionable figures （*cough* Deepak Chopra *cough*）。 The biggest consequence of this theory is that it does have one big huge effect on the immediate future of technology: artificial intelligence。 If Penrose's theory is correct， basically， computational A。I。 is impossible for humans to create。 It is a biological process which is related to the celestial geometry of the universe。 No matter how we program our NPCs， they'll never be able to be conscious。 That's another reason the theory really ticks a lot of people off。The other flaw is the fact this book isn't exactly written for laymen。 I know a good deal of physics for an amateur and required a couple of other scientists to understand everything which was being said。 Penrose basically assumes his readers are familiar with not only quantum physics， his previous work， computation， but also problems of free will。Personally， I'm inclined to believe Orch-Or theory is the source of human consciousness。 In effect， "imagination" is the real multiverse since alternate realities last only as long as they're thought of。 The biggest flaw of this book， though， is a lot of the collaborating evidence for its truth came out through studies conducted after it was written。Many people still dispute this theory but no one has been able to put up a better one， IMHO。 。。。more
Luc Vors
，
Holy shit！ What the hell was I thinking？ I'm having to go through each paragraph a good 3 times before it all gels。 But man， oh man， is it good！ Holy shit！ What the hell was I thinking？ I'm having to go through each paragraph a good 3 times before it all gels。 But man， oh man， is it good！ 。。。more
Josh
，
This book was Penrose arguing that human consciousness is impossible to replicate inside a computer。 The book goes covers physics， mathematics， and some neuroanatomy。 They are definitely sections that almost require having an advanced degree in mathematics to understand。An interesting read， but probably not where you want to start if you're interested in arguments about artificial intelligence and consciousness。 This book was Penrose arguing that human consciousness is impossible to replicate inside a computer。 The book goes covers physics， mathematics， and some neuroanatomy。 They are definitely sections that almost require having an advanced degree in mathematics to understand。An interesting read， but probably not where you want to start if you're interested in arguments about artificial intelligence and consciousness。 。。。more
Anthony Faber
，
This is a "sort of" sequel to his "The Emperor's New Mind"。 I'd read that first and， if that goes down well， read this。 This is a "sort of" sequel to his "The Emperor's New Mind"。 I'd read that first and， if that goes down well， read this。 。。。more
Ege Özmeral
，
Penrose's Gödelian Argument （by Solomon Feferman） Penrose's Gödelian Argument （by Solomon Feferman） 。。。more
Jimmy Ele
，
What can I say about a book which challenged my mathematical understanding and revealed the unseen aspects of my own brain's cytoskeletal structures？ Was it the knowledge that there is a type of water in these structures which is considered a necessary element for cancelling the interference that would null the necessary conditions for quantum coherence to take effect？ Or was it the mathematical proof showing that because there are mathematical statements of which we know to be absolutely true y What can I say about a book which challenged my mathematical understanding and revealed the unseen aspects of my own brain's cytoskeletal structures？ Was it the knowledge that there is a type of water in these structures which is considered a necessary element for cancelling the interference that would null the necessary conditions for quantum coherence to take effect？ Or was it the mathematical proof showing that because there are mathematical statements of which we know to be absolutely true yet cannot prove， then it follows for us to conclude that a computer could never achieve consciousness （at least with the 1994 mathematical understanding available）？ Trust me， Roger Penrose does it in a supremely much more elegant fashion than I could ever do it justice with in a GoodReads summary。 So why 4 stars？ Well， I'm not an expert at Lambda Calculus or many of the subjects that Roger Penrose expertly weaves in and out of， so it became supremely hard to follow at times。 However， I broke through this barrier and was able to glean from it the nuggets that I could understand。 I recommend anyone interested in these subjects to do the same。 。。。more
Enrique Oviedo
，
Para un público muy limitado。Para empezar， no recomendaría leer este libro a nadie que no haya leído previamente "La nueva mente del emperador"。 Aquel libro finalizaba con una serie de conjeturas sobre el posible modo en que funciona el pensamiento。 En este "Las sombras de la mente" se sigue prácticamente con un punto y seguido a aquellas especulaciones。 Se intenta apoyan con más evidencias las líneas de pensamiento allí esbozadas y refutar los argumentos contrarios que le han ido planteando a P Para un público muy limitado。Para empezar， no recomendaría leer este libro a nadie que no haya leído previamente "La nueva mente del emperador"。 Aquel libro finalizaba con una serie de conjeturas sobre el posible modo en que funciona el pensamiento。 En este "Las sombras de la mente" se sigue prácticamente con un punto y seguido a aquellas especulaciones。 Se intenta apoyan con más evidencias las líneas de pensamiento allí esbozadas y refutar los argumentos contrarios que le han ido planteando a Penrose。 Acompañar al autor en este viaje es una gimnasia mental sugerente y estimulante。 Sin embargo， requiere un esfuerzo muy elevado para seguir unas líneas de pensamiento que no dejan de ser meras intuiciones。 。。。more
Kerem Cankocak
，
Penrose， Gödel teoerimi üzerinden yapay zekanın hesaplanabilir bir etkinlikle oluşturulamayacağını söylerken aslında yapay zeka mümkün değil demiyor。 Penrose'un ne demek istediğini anlamak için bu kitabı çok dikkatli okumak gerekir。 Felsefecilerin Penrose'un argümanını tam olarak kavrayamadıkları kanaatindeyim。 Penrose， Gödel teoerimi üzerinden yapay zekanın hesaplanabilir bir etkinlikle oluşturulamayacağını söylerken aslında yapay zeka mümkün değil demiyor。 Penrose'un ne demek istediğini anlamak için bu kitabı çok dikkatli okumak gerekir。 Felsefecilerin Penrose'un argümanını tam olarak kavrayamadıkları kanaatindeyim。 。。。more
Georg Hohbach
，
Inspiring sequel to the Emperor’s New Mind:The three key insights I took away were:1。tThe mathematical， timeless Platonic world contains all of math2。tThe connection between superpositions （when， e。g。， a quantum propagates forward in a mysterious configuration of existing at different places at the same time）， the quantum mechanical probability of finding a quantum at a certain location and the random appearance of a quantum at one location caused by a large scale measurement。3。tThe question: Ho Inspiring sequel to the Emperor’s New Mind:The three key insights I took away were:1。tThe mathematical， timeless Platonic world contains all of math2。tThe connection between superpositions （when， e。g。， a quantum propagates forward in a mysterious configuration of existing at different places at the same time）， the quantum mechanical probability of finding a quantum at a certain location and the random appearance of a quantum at one location caused by a large scale measurement。3。tThe question: How can there be both deterministic processes and processes that appear to be happening randomly？ What is the deeper connection so that these opposite processes can occur in one and the same universe？ 。。。more
Ravi Warrier
，
This is the first book that I have read that attempts to determine the existence of the mind mathematically （scientifically） and it is interesting how Penrose， argues for both and against various points， maps out logic mathematically and links quantum mechanics to the working of the brain， thus generating the phenomenon of the 'mind'。 The book is heavy on maths and if you are like me， most of it will just go over the head， despite Penrose's claim that it's just basic maths。 Ignoring the maths is This is the first book that I have read that attempts to determine the existence of the mind mathematically （scientifically） and it is interesting how Penrose， argues for both and against various points， maps out logic mathematically and links quantum mechanics to the working of the brain， thus generating the phenomenon of the 'mind'。 The book is heavy on maths and if you are like me， most of it will just go over the head， despite Penrose's claim that it's just basic maths。 Ignoring the maths is possible at times， but in certain cases you have to wade through。The only motivation to do so， is to see the light at the end of the figurative tunnel - to know what Penrose's conclusions are。 It is a page-turner （though I mostly， skipped the maths） and for the person with a serious drive to understand consciousness and the mind， this would be one of your text books。 。。。more
Jaza42
，
I could write a long review about why I think this book have little to no credibility in its claims， but I'll just quote a footnote:"As an outsider to the subject of neuroanatomy。。。"Enough said。 I could write a long review about why I think this book have little to no credibility in its claims， but I'll just quote a footnote:"As an outsider to the subject of neuroanatomy。。。"Enough said。 。。。more
Marco Bitetto
，
This book is substantially better written than Dr。 Penrose's firstbook on the subject of consciousness and artificial intelligence。I would recommend this book to anyone that wants to understand thelimitations of mechanized intelligence vs the power of the humanmind。 This book is substantially better written than Dr。 Penrose's firstbook on the subject of consciousness and artificial intelligence。I would recommend this book to anyone that wants to understand thelimitations of mechanized intelligence vs the power of the humanmind。 。。。more
Todd Stockslager
，
Penrose， while more famous， does not do as well at popularizing the heady physics and mathemathics in this area as Barrow and Tipler （which see elsewhere in this list）。 His reasoning is too tortured and formula-heavy for me， whom I consider an advanced popular reader。However， he does reach the deep conclusion that "whatever brain activity is responsible for consciousness 。 。 。 It must depend upon a physics that lies beyond computational simulation （p。 411）。" Instead of resorting to the mind as m Penrose， while more famous， does not do as well at popularizing the heady physics and mathemathics in this area as Barrow and Tipler （which see elsewhere in this list）。 His reasoning is too tortured and formula-heavy for me， whom I consider an advanced popular reader。However， he does reach the deep conclusion that "whatever brain activity is responsible for consciousness 。 。 。 It must depend upon a physics that lies beyond computational simulation （p。 411）。" Instead of resorting to the mind as mystical or mysterious， Penrose postulates that consciousness， while uncalculable， is still physical， perhaps in an interaction in the brain between classical physics and quantum physics not yet discovered or understood。 Penrose points to the possibility of "microtubules" （part of the cytoskeleton that exist even in single-cell paramecium--and seem to give that cell some level of understanding！） that form nuerons at the quantum level being the answer to this current quandary:"Accordingly， the neuron level of description that provides the currently fashionable picture of the brain and mind is a mere shadow of the deeper level of cytoskeletal action--and it is at this deeper level where we must seek the physical basis of mind！"That Penrose only gets to this statement on p。 376 of this heavy tome is part of the problem with this book。 。。。more
Rian Nejar
，
The author's stand， that we need new physics to understand the science of consciousness， and that this new physics he believes required is quantum physics， seems more his personal intuition （read delusion if you like！） than rigorous scientific inference。 Applying models of sub-atomic phenomena to comprehend biological or life processes separated by very many orders of magnitude is an unscientific stretch too far。 Quantum uncertainty of sub-atomic particles or fields does not map， by any evidence The author's stand， that we need new physics to understand the science of consciousness， and that this new physics he believes required is quantum physics， seems more his personal intuition （read delusion if you like！） than rigorous scientific inference。 Applying models of sub-atomic phenomena to comprehend biological or life processes separated by very many orders of magnitude is an unscientific stretch too far。 Quantum uncertainty of sub-atomic particles or fields does not map， by any evidence or intuition， to decision uncertainty in organic neural networks。 Likewise， wave-particle duality in sub-atomic entities can hardly be called equivalent to concepts relating to the mind and the brain。 。。。more
Iliyan Bobev
，
I liked Emperor's new Mind better。 This one has more narrow scope。 There is a lot of repetition of the core idea， apart from few intriguing ones towards the end。 I liked Emperor's new Mind better。 This one has more narrow scope。 There is a lot of repetition of the core idea， apart from few intriguing ones towards the end。 。。。more
Andreas K。
，
In this book Roger Penrose uses the Gödel's incompleteness theorem （Gödel-Turing argument） to prove that human brains use non-computational processes in order to ascertain the truth of unprovable Gödel statements。 He concludes that mathematical understanding， and consciousness in general， is not computational。 One possible candidate for non-computational physics is quantum gravity。 As long as a quantum system is effectively isolated from its environment and remains coherent， a process called “gr In this book Roger Penrose uses the Gödel's incompleteness theorem （Gödel-Turing argument） to prove that human brains use non-computational processes in order to ascertain the truth of unprovable Gödel statements。 He concludes that mathematical understanding， and consciousness in general， is not computational。 One possible candidate for non-computational physics is quantum gravity。 As long as a quantum system is effectively isolated from its environment and remains coherent， a process called “gravitationally induced objective state reduction” （OR） can occur。 This OR is claimed to be non-random and non-computational。 Penrose's highly speculative idea is that cytoskeletal microtubules maintain large-scale quantum coherence through portions of brain， and when a critical threshold is reached the OR takes place。 Such processes give rise to the non-computational behavior of the brain。 。。。more
Alastair De Grandis
，
I had this on my 'must read' list when it was first published then due to events （those things that get in the way o all our plans） it slipped below the surface of conscious mind and I forgot about it。 Hearing Penrose at Hay in 2010 resurfaced it only for it again nearly to succumb to the plate tectonics of my brain and slip under the continent of my consciousness due to another set of events （I began to think there might be a quantum superpostion followed by a collapse of possibilites each time I had this on my 'must read' list when it was first published then due to events （those things that get in the way o all our plans） it slipped below the surface of conscious mind and I forgot about it。 Hearing Penrose at Hay in 2010 resurfaced it only for it again nearly to succumb to the plate tectonics of my brain and slip under the continent of my consciousness due to another set of events （I began to think there might be a quantum superpostion followed by a collapse of possibilites each time I encountered Professor Penrose since both times relocation to a different part of Britain followed shortly after） Anyway this time I bought the book knowing that if it was sitting on my shelves it would keep presenting itself to my notice until I read it。 I have now done so and it was worth every page turn and brain stirring moment！ As some one who managed to pass O level maths but was kindly advised not to make the universe or at least my maths teacher suffer by attempting A level I found some of the book quite daunting in prospect but not in actuality。 Even non-mathmeticians can follow the arguments he makes and the philosophy is logical and straightforward。 Whether you agree or disagree with his premise that in terms of conscious thinking and computation there is something going on in the mind that cannot be explained in terms of current scientific knowledge will be for you to decide。 Although the science of quantum physics has moved on in the last twenty years nothing invalidates the arguments he sets out。 He takes the viewpoint that appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness， but this physical action cannot even be properly simulated computationally。 The book is an exploration of this as contrasted with three other viewpoints that range from 'all thinking is computational and awarenes is evoked by this process' to the opposite which is 'awarenes scannot be explained by physical， computational or any other scientific terms'。 Not the easiest of reads but incredibly rewarding and for anyone interested in what makes us human， self aware， conscious entities then I would thoroughly recommend it whether in the end you do or don't agree with his proposition the exploratory journey is worth your time and effort。 。。。more
Alex Zakharov
，
First and foremost Penrose presents the best argument against computer-simulated human intelligence I’ve heard to date。 In fact it is the only argument that I know of that holds water （and I think by now I have heard them all – from Searle’s chinese room to the fundamental energy limitations of recursive simulation models）。 The mechanics and technical details of the argument get a little complex （Penrose approach is very systematic， often formal， and quite exhaustive - a large spectrum of mathem First and foremost Penrose presents the best argument against computer-simulated human intelligence I’ve heard to date。 In fact it is the only argument that I know of that holds water （and I think by now I have heard them all – from Searle’s chinese room to the fundamental energy limitations of recursive simulation models）。 The mechanics and technical details of the argument get a little complex （Penrose approach is very systematic， often formal， and quite exhaustive - a large spectrum of mathematical， logical and philosophical corner cases are covered） but broad strokes are easy enough to follow。 The argument runs as follows。 Consider math， which in theory should be the simplest thing for computer to “understand” before we even get to more complicated subjective areas such as emotions， qualia， free will etc。 Then use Godel’s incompleteness theorem to show that regardless of how you pick your initial set of axioms （to be fed into the computer） there will exist mathematical statements that will be true， given the axioms， but will not be computable （in the church-turing sense） from those axioms。 The truthfulness of those mathematical statements can be ascertained by humans but not by universal turing machines （i。e。 computers）。 In other words there is something to human understanding that allows it to determine truthfulness/falsehood of statements and transcend the axiomatic rules from which such statements were derived from。 It is exactly that kind of understanding that computers lack。 Now， of course， to get to this point Penrose had to quickly cover a lot of ground – Turing machines， Church-Turing thesis， computability， decidability， （non）determinism， chaos， halting problems， tiling problems， discrete vs continuous computation， Godel’s theorem etc。 It is a great refresher for those familiar with the subject matter and a nice introduction to those who aren’t。The second half of the book looks for a non-computational yet scientific basis for human intelligence。 Here Penrose moves into a brief overview of quantum mechanics （QM） which was quite fantastic actually （I dreamed of Schrodinger’s cat for a couple of nights）， he also shows where QM breaks down and where its inconsistencies with general relativity get manifested。 Absolutely fascinating overview of the field and its conundrums。 No surprises here - we all know TOE is still work in progress and Penrose view is that it is QM that would need to be radically modified to be consistent with relativity， not the other way around。 Anyway， QM itself is very well-defined， precise and unambiguous but it is in its transition to non-quantum reality via state vector reduction where quite a few difficulties arise。 Or to put it simply QM is perfectly well-defined （i。e。 quantum coherence is indeed coherent） till the moment an observer is introduced。 But in the end the author brings us to Hameroff-Penrose theory of consciousness that is linked to OR （objective reduction） of a wave function。 And in the brain this non-computational process takes place not among the neurons themselves but in cytoskeleton microtubules （within neurons）。 Voila – we arrive at scientific non-computational basis for human understanding/consciousnessWhat can I say – recruiting Godel to drive a solid very scientific nail through the heart of hard AI （part one of the book） was very very nicely done and just for that the book gets five stars。 A gallop through QM and its difficulties was a bit masochistic but I did enjoy it。 As far as microtubules – clearly highly speculative but Penrose says so himself at the outset， so I suppose you can take it or leave it。 Overall though this is one of the more rewarding books I’ve read in recent and not-so-recent memory; if you are even marginally interested in the subject matter reading this one should be a no-brainer。 。。。more
R。J。 O'Connor
，
Extremely thought provoking and a real wake up call for those assuming we will achieve the singularity in a few short decades。 The theories espoused here are truly amazing， and if shown to be true will change the way we think about just about everything。
Ant
，
It's one of those books that makes things clear in your mind in a way that stays with you。 Penrose is the man。 It's one of those books that makes things clear in your mind in a way that stays with you。 Penrose is the man。 。。。more
Laurent
，
Continuation of The Emperor New Mind but more focused on specific and in my sense less relevant details。 If I had to choose between the two， I would pick The Emperor。。。 over this book; which is somewhat redundant。 Continuation of The Emperor New Mind but more focused on specific and in my sense less relevant details。 If I had to choose between the two， I would pick The Emperor。。。 over this book; which is somewhat redundant。 。。。more
Sanchar Sharma
，