Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong
by GutsIn my view the conscious brain does not act according to classical physics. It doesn’t even act according to conventional quantum mechanics. It acts according to a theory we don’t yet have. This is being a bit big-headed, but I think it’s a little bit like William Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood. He worked out that it had to circulate, but the veins and arteries just peter out, so how could the blood get through from one to the other? And he said, “Well, it must be tiny little tubes there, and we can’t see them, but they must be there.” Nobody believed it for some time. So I’m still hoping to find something like that—some structure that preserves coherence, because I believe it ought to be there.
And we finally have a physics category.
October 21st, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Penrose says that "the conscious brain does not act according to classical physics. It doesn’t even act according to conventional quantum mechanics. It acts according to a theory we don’t yet have." If he is correct then key elements of Intelligent Design, i.e. purpose and volition, are undefinable by reference to any existing physics theory. That may indicate to some that ID lacks even a theoretical empirical underpinning for its bedrock concepts. Yet it also reaffirms that critics lack a rational basis for predicting how "non-telic" biological systems could give rise to systems enabling volition without a revolutionary paradigm shift. Why assume that volition arises from processes disassociated from it rather than that the existence of it preceded human volitional capacity, particularly if fundamental theories are lacking?
Comment by Bradford — October 21, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
October 21st, 2009 at 10:50 pm
I read The Emperor's New Mind a long while ago. What I remember is that he insisted that the mind was "non-algorithmic" without really nailing down what that entails. Strong AI? Weak AI? Non-Turing Complete? He mentions these terms but does not draw a precise definition. "Non-algorithmic" appeared to be just another woo-woo term. Or such is what I recall.
From the article (regarding quantum mechanics):
Wait, how does he know it isn't right?
Oh, because he assumes laws must be deterministic.
We've all heard about how Einstein once said that God does not throw dice. Of lesser fame is Bohr's response: Stop telling God what to do. (Though wikiquote says the attribution is disputed.)
Comment by Jupiter — October 21, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 am
To my reading, what Penrose is saying is the QM is not quite right, it is only an approximation to the real answer ("My own view is that quantum mechanics is not exactly right, and I think there’s a lot of evidence for that"). Thus, when he says "the conscious brain does not act according to classical physics. It doesn’t even act according to conventional quantum mechanics. It acts according to a theory we don’t yet have" he is refering to this new theory that will replace QM. As an aside, then it sounds like there is no place in his theory of the mind for any spiritual component, such as the soul.
I think we can all be sure that purpose and volition are not defined by reference to any existing physics theory.
Hmm, good point. Maybe it does.
Of course, that would also be true forensic science, archaeology and psychology; they all invoke purpose and volition, and seem to be successful, even so.
Can ID explain how biological systems could give rise to systems enabling volition? Generally, IDists seem reluctant to explain even how biological systems could arise at all. And possibly the best laid out scenario, FLE, would seem to have the same problem that mainstream evolution does.
Comment by The Pixie Again — October 22, 2009 @ 4:04 am
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 am
[...] A physicist on the brain. [...]
Pingback by Wednesday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath — October 22, 2009 @ 7:21 am
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 am
[...] A physicist on the brain. [...]
Pingback by Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e90v3 — October 22, 2009 @ 7:21 am
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
I've recently come across some information about the bee experiments performed by James Gould, and it made me wonder how much all of this talk of neurons and brain size is really relevant to what we think of as intelligence.
Here's the Wiki entry on them, but it doesn't go into the details of the bees' anticipatory actions observed by Gould.
At one point in Gould's experiments, the bees "figured out" he was moving the food source a certain distance away each time and began anticipating his movement, flying straight from the hive to the point where Gould was going to set up the food.
That's how I remember the story, anyway. If anybody can find more details, that beats me having to search for the book in which I found the anecdotes.
It caught me as very spooky, and punctuates Penrose's implication that we really don't understand intelligence.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 22, 2009 @ 11:02 am
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:14 am
That seems to be a universal problem.
Perhaps the theory we don't yet have would indicate that life's core enabling features can only result from processes whose probabilistic outcome is infinitesimal in the absence of the revised concepts needed to explain consciousness.
Comment by Bradford — October 22, 2009 @ 11:14 am
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 am
I don’t see what’s so “weird” about quantum mechanics. It makes perfect sense to me; but then I obviously don’t understand it as well as Penrose. And “ordinary experience” is a lot “weirder” than people may think, mostly because they just aren’t paying attention. LOL
And if “consciousness” isn’t explained classically or quantum mechanically, then what makes one think it will be explained by the “next big theory” to come along? Or as Bradford says, “revolutionary paradigm shift.”
Could be we are asking the wrong questions which is why none of our theories are working. IDers got a theory 'bout that? LOL
In your book The Emperor’s New Mind, you posited that consciousness emerges from quantum physical actions within the cells of the brain. Two decades later, do you stand by that?
In my view the conscious brain does not act according to classical physics. It doesn’t even act according to conventional quantum mechanics. It acts according to a theory we don’t yet have.—Penrose
Well, he didn’t answer Yes/No, but I don’t think that was much of an endorsement of his own theory. Which is good. It was a bad theory.
Understanding of human consciousness, volition, intelligence, and design are all well-grounded in the biophysics and biochemistry of the brain. Nothing “weird” or “spooky” about it.
ID? Weird. Spooky.
Comment by Rock — October 22, 2009 @ 11:41 am
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
What is so mysterious about consciousness? We can argue about whether it “emerged” or whether it is a basic aspect of reality? We can quibble about which is primary — whether consciousness preceded or resulted from creation of mass and energy. But we each possess a portion of freewill/creativity/consciousness, and are free examine it at our leisure. We know freewill/creativity/consciousness is basically unpredictable and cannot be described by mathematical formulas. It strives to serve self interest. Volition/creativity/freewill can obviously effect physically reality. Our mind moves our body, so obviously mind moves matter. It is true that the physical condition of brains effect the efficiency of minds. Assuming mind also works through other physical mechanisms other than brains, in this respect physical reality exerts a limit upon the effectiveness of mind. However the self-interest purposefulness remains — immaterial, unspecific, creative, and not reducible to mathematical predictions.
Obviously whoever decided that reality should be a predictable mechanical device chose to ignore freewill/creativity/consciousness, and invented a hypothetical mechanical reality. They then declared this hypothetical reality to be “science”. Those people will search in vain for a new “theory” to reconcile a non materialistic reality with their mechanical hypotheses. Those of us who accept the non physicality reality of consciousness/freewill/creativity don’t see the need for a new theory.
bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/
Comment by Bert — October 22, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Lol!
"Move along folks. Nothing to see here. What's the matter, you've never seen dirt turn into a Mozart Symphony before?"
It should be.
Comment by chunkdz — October 22, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 am
Rock wrote:
Well, understand that I'm a layman (i.e. an ignoramus), so things will seem "spooky" to me when they have perfectly natural explanations.
For instance, neurologists and neurosurgeons assure me of the exact same things you do – that the brain is a bag of highly structured chemicals and meat and it is apparently all we are.
Yet when a shotgun blast, an IED, or some other violent act destroys 25% to 50% of that mass, the "personality" underneath (which we know doesn't actually exist, being an emergent property and all) can somehow remain – not unscathed, to be sure, but still easily recognizable to other chemical-meat bags. It's spooky to see someone with half a head speak and think, even if the underlying principles are not supposed to be spooky.
Also, strangely enough, I trust the chemical meat-bags in the skulls of the aforementioned neurologists & neurosurgeons to be structured well enough to restructure my chemical meat-bag, even though I probably shouldn't.
They are, after all, just monkeys following their evolutionary programming. Monkeys educated even beyond their level tell me all behavior is governed by evolutionary programming and meat-chemical interaction. So trusting the medical monkeys is foolish, because they'd probably just as soon bash my cranium in with a discarded femur bone than delicately pierce, cut, and cauterize my chemical meat-bag.
I think I'll stick with spookiness. It may not be smart, but I'm not a smart man, so it works well for me.
Comment by angryoldfatman — October 23, 2009 @ 9:19 am
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
In his book, The Astonishing Hypothesis, Francis Crick writes:
Obviously, Crick believed that mind, self and personal identity could be reduced to a set of underlying physical structures and functions. He believed that, but was he able to prove that?
I would argue, that if we give any thought to the problem at all, that one of the things that is not easily reducible or explainable, to some underlying physical cause or collection of causes, is personal identity and our experience of the continuity of self.
This problem in some form goes back to ancient times. For example, Plutarch relates the story of the ship of Theseus which raises this issue:
In other words, if one wanted to both preserve and continue to use a wooden ship, like the ship of Theseus, one theoretically would after certain length of time end up replacing all parts of the ship: deck planks, hull planks, keel, mast rudder and oars. After everything had been replaced, would the ship still be the same ship?
What do we base our personal identity on if the cells in our body, and more critically our brain, are being continually renewed and replaced?
Here is a relevant observation from The Spiritual Brain:
I would add that self and personal identity are not reducible something physical because nothing that is physical has the qualities that self and personal identity have.
Furthermore, those who argue that it is reducible have come no where close to explaining or demonstrating how it is reducible.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — October 23, 2009 @ 11:58 am
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
The divide between hardware and software has only strengthened the dualism.
The question is whether the perception of dualism is an artifact of our convenient way of perceiving things or whether it represents an underlying reality. I don't think the question can be resolved by any sort of experiment, one must take a side based on faith and what seems most reasonable.
Penrose posed the question of whether math was "real" or merely an artifact of our convenience for doing business. He is a platonist, he is of the opinion there is a deep eternal reality of mathematical forms that are deeper than physical reality.
Ironically, Penrose has a keen distaste for ID.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 23, 2009 @ 12:31 pm