This is a brief six-minute snippet of a longer discussion.
Full interview: Asking A Theoretical Physicist About The Physics Of Consciousness | Roger Penrose & Jordan Peterson.
I find this a great example of how two people can attempt to articulate a common language , and hence hopefully some understanding, across very different knowledge domains - in this case, theoretical physics and psychology.
I met Roger Penrose a few times around the year 2000. Indeed, I recall being introduced to his newly-born son at an exhibition of Penrose's scientific art and drawings - hence am able to precisely date this to 2000. I cannot find a collection of the drawings still online, but there is another video about his use of drawings as a form of articulation and inspiration for his geometry and mathematics.
The Nobel Prize committee is not known for its speed in honouring scientists, so it is with some mercy that Penrose was rewarded in 2020, for a paper going back to 1965, and at the sprightly age of 88!
I found Sir Roger to be really quite gracious in discussing topics and giving of his time - qualities that are not exactly in abundance within the world of eminent science writers. With shared interests in the history of mathematics and the arts, we would sometimes go off at tangents to the project I was working on. Although the project fell through, I did end up with some shared friendships within the niche realm of mathematics as culture.
I have no arguments against having a good argument; and scientists are prolific at it. So... where did that energy go within the current tyranny of lockstep science? Where did the voices go? One often says that "money talks", but we now see how money can also shut people up.
So, enjoy the discussion about an overwhelmingly difficult topic that, for now, is relatively free of the thought police. This won't be for much longer, as I still maintain that consciousness is intimately related to electromagnetic fields and hence prone to being manipulated by transmitters of frequencies.
Note how Penrose often seeks to clarify the questions. Something one rarely gets online. Many (most?) online discussions revolve around people expressing their views - again - and again - without seemingly answering any questions posed. There is the structure of a discussion yet little exchange of views. Maybe that's how bots work.
A really good discussion! I wrote an article a few years ago about the effect of money on science called "Dodgy Data For Dirty Dollars."
Sometimes the truth peers out from behind a curtain - and then strangled on stage.
The case of "cold fusion" remains a very public example of how promoted public science is far from the truth - and far closer to propaganda. Not all of it, of course, the science must work, and appear to work, but the field is kept within narrow limits. eg news is never allowed to mention the resonance effects of pulsed microwave radiation on life. This is one reason that cold fusion had to be iced - the implications are enormous and would dislodge from the average mush-brain the notion of materialism. In one section, Penrose describes the simple relationship between mass and frequency - something done in A-level physics at school - yet the implications are rarely unravelled (unless I'm your teacher!) Whenever I teach the topic, I give the example of why a human running through an open door does not diffract like a wave!
Oh, I so wished one of my students would spontaneously diffract while running out of the room.
Imagine the mess! But imagine the messed-up minds too!
I watched the snippet and definitely was hooked. Bookmarked this for later review when I get Internet going again at home. I feel it may answer some questions I have buried in my concious and may, more than likely, uncover more questions.
I never heard of Rogers work but I have seen pictures of him and Einstein together once when I was but a wee lad doing a school project in 2nd grade about what we opined on black holes existing.
I don't recall what was said on the board but I do remember the pictures lol.
I have to look into what these equations he was mentioning mean because I have no idea what it is nor ever heard of it. But the mere talk about conciousness from a physicist perspective is always interesting to me. Thank you for the share.
I found it funny seeing Peterson struggle with the maths ;-) It is genuinely hard - however smart one is at doing background research, one can get the general ideas, but that isn't a deep understanding, a word Penrose uses a lot - that, in his opinion, is the non-computational step of consciousness. I'm not convinced about that, nor that such an understanding would guarantee the truth, as people believe all sorts of crap, and remain convinced of their beliefs, which they take as true understanding.
I must add that mathemtics is not really one language, but a whole plethora of languages, so even a mathematician going from one branch to another will need to take the time to learn the new symbols and syntax - just as knowing one language does not mean we understand every language, even those written in the same alphabet!
such as the native toungue and legalese language. I get what you are saying. I hardly understood what was going on. He was using vocabs I never heard before.
but when its explained as simple as possible for the general public, that explanation interests me.
Is there a some visual videos that explains what they were saying? a cartoon? lol
Right, and you notice that the two also need to first agree they both understand the same question - Penrose seems obviously not so immersed in the jargon of social discourse. lol. And admits it, so needs clearer questions! hah
I love it when I get to have live conversations like that. Unfortunately the socratic method is not for everyone.
Radical info discussion
But Hypnosis and Entertainment Walks the WALKers 🤬🥓
lmao.
reminded me of a scene in Auto-da-fe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-da-F%C3%A9_(novel)
another grim novel from a dark era that could enlighten the present - but unlikely.
Also, keep in touch with Blurtconnect-ng family on Telegram and Whatsapp
We invite you to use the tag #blurthispano. You can find us on Discord.
Manually curated by Geeklania.
We invite you to vote for @blurthispano as Witness.
Posted from https://blurtlatam.com
Oh, I have something to watch !
Excellent.
Wow , you are really lucky to meet him. Sir Roger Penrose is really talented personality. I read that he was not awarded the full nobel peace prize and that he was awarded only one half of the prize for black hole. He has done a lot of work on black hole right ?
peace? no. Physics :-)
I think i mistyped it , it's only nobel prize in physics.
Congratulations, your post has been curated by @dsc-r2cornell. You can use the tag #R2cornell. Also, find us on Discord
Felicitaciones, su publicación ha sido votada por @ dsc-r2cornell. Puedes usar el tag #R2cornell. También, nos puedes encontrar en Discord
very useful discussion, i really enjoyed,thanks for sharing this.
Got something worthy to watch...!