[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the heads up and the excerpts!

I agree fully with your reading of Penrose's statements and wish to add these two observations:

1. Penrose did not speak whatsoever to the subject of unconsciousness, though he acknowledges that it exists as well consciousness.

2. In Emporer's New Mind Penrose emphasizes math which pre-exists (like the Mandelbrot set) and was later discovered. Though it is evidently offensive to some, pre-existence seems obvious to me. For instance, Schwarzchild Geometry was not created by Schwarzchild, it was discovered by him.

Penrose is not a computationalist (as he calls it.) Therefore, it is not surprising to me that so many researchers in Artificial Intelligence are not keen on his findings. I suspect they may be upset because simulating human thought is the "holy grail" of their life work.

At any rate, I agree that he is not a materialist. I would say he is a true scientist who has indentified the point at which current science fails and new science is needed to go any further.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Many working mathematicians have the notion that mathematics is invented not discovered. (I don't remember what these are called.) Others (the Platonists) believe that mathematical objects exist independent of being discovered. The problems raised by the Axiom of Choice make both positions uncomfortable.

What's funny (to me at least) is that many non-mathematicians tell me that they support the Platonist line, but they balk at saying the complex numbers exist. I'm not sure if this group of people accept vector spaces or abstract groups.)

[Physicist]

See #4295.

"Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness," -- Roger Penrose

[gore3000]

Penrose is not a computationalist (as he calls it.) Therefore, it is not surprising to me that so many researchers in Artificial Intelligence are not keen on his findings. I suspect they may be upset because simulating human thought is the "holy grail" of their life work.

One really must really wonder how a computer can think like a human. How for example could a computer 'love' or have any other human emotion. Certainly our emotions affect our thinking even if one does not consider them to be thoughts themselves. Other problems are how can a computer have insight or conscience. This also seems impossible.

However, perhaps the toughest test for a computer thinking like a human being is laughter. Will a computer ever be able to laugh at a joke like a human can? There is much that is human involved in even a simple joke such as irony, a dissonance from reality, plays on words, etc. For example , the simple one liner "Take my wife, PLEASE!" would probably drive any computer nuts trying to figure out what the joke is.