Roger Penrose – Toward a Science of Consciousness

21 thoughts on “Roger Penrose – Toward a Science of Consciousness”

1. Fun hypothesis … but has this been tested in any way?

2. WHAT'S EVER BEEN CREATED OR CREAT STARTED WITH HUMAN MIND, IMMAGINATION, LOGIC CAN TAKE YOU TO A-B BUT IMMAGINATION IS CHRIST BEING CONSCIOUSNESS, THE MASTER KEY FOR CREATION, I AM A LIVING WITHNES. QUOTES AKUNNE 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️

3. CONSCIOUSNESS IS CHRIST BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS IS OUT OF UNIVERSAL-PROGRAM, CONSCIOUSNESS IS UNEXPLAINABLE, BUT REMEMBER ALL CREATION STARTED WITH HUMAN TOUGHT, WHAT'S EVER MY-MIND CAN CONSIEVED AND BELIEVED, MY-MIND MUST EVER ACHIEVED IT. QUOTES AKUNNE 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️

4. HIGHLY WELCOME EVERYONE ONBOARD. QUOTES AKUNNE 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️ 🇺🇸 ✔️

5. Lose the dollies.

6. We will eventually find that Jung's Collective Unconscious is mirrored by Quantum Field Theory. Two sides of the same coin. Who conjured up the magical coin? The Great Programmer.

7. if consciousness is harnessed directly within the body at a quantum level, why then does it seem to operate so consistently over time and through so many different body states; or is that an illusion and we could one day design experiments that expose "changes" in consciousness within individuals

8. I don't get it why we need to come up with those convoluted ideas to explain conciousness/reality, when there is a much simpler approach, that takes away so many weird concepts, as proto consiouness being formed as result of the colapse of the wave function, a 3×1 dimmension, time, and the concept of now. Isn't much simpler to assume that everything that can exist just exist and that everything that cannot exist simply don't exist, simultaneously? Conciousness is just a perspective of everything/nothing. Just like a character in a novel is just a perspective on the multiple marks written in the book.

9. This is all so wooly and absurd to half of us – because we do know how life was indeed formed and that is by the supreme living consciousness – part of which has been implanted in us – and in even smaller measure in all living things around us – by our Creator.
   His name to us is God – and His message is protected eternally by His invisible army of Angels (known as His Holy Spirit).
   It’s farrout – but it’s simply the TRUTH.
   This Penrose chap and all his scientist colleagues are trying to explain and define what already IS… One day they will catch up…
   The Truth already is – it is Eternal (not mortal) and it is Now already written in Time from the outside of Time by the our Great Father.

   This Creator imbued us with some link to His supreme consciousness – as a gift and a test – and gave us a Miraculous single portal – remote and small but bright and ever present – in the centre of Time in a centrally located place via His only Son – come to show us the meaning of Suffering – and the way to the Light of Heaven – a mid-coloured mid-sized man – the Son of God – to test us… just as He said “to divide us” through examining our individual unique souls – our spirit- our goodness – our worth to Him and to Life in its final perfect state.
   Get with the beauty – open your mind far further Mr Penrose… You cannot see the wood for the trees.
   Only the Miracle is real… and it’s where we are not but in fleeting ecstatic glimpses.
   “The wisdom of men is foolishness to GOD”

10. Is light necessary for consciousness?

11. Given mankind is the pinnacle of creation and mankind's mind is a great gift, then why be surprised would be interested in its beauty and nature.

12. Awareness is known by awareness alone.

13. a super-physical consciousness has simple nature, while physical nature develops complexity?

14. consciousness might have super-physicality (if that is correct term)? the physicality of consciousness is greater than physical nature, whatever the best word for it may be? (God also has super-physicality?)

15. I think the whole “wavefunction collapse” theory on which ORC-OR is based is complete nonsense. Light, for example, is neither a wave nor a particle. It just depends on how you MEASURE it! If it’s spread out in a wave, as in a “single” photon going through a slit, you really have NO IDEA what the distribution of energy is – though presumably it is related to the wavefunction. So, when you stick your detector in there to see “where” it is, that energy field “collapses” to a single point because that is the whole “point” of quantum-mechanics: while the energy is related to an underlying (EM) field, it has some intrinsic integrity that insures it “stays together”. This sounds very wierd, but it’s not that difficult to understand if you know what “slime” is. It’s a goopy stuff that has both fluid and elastic properties. If you have a slanted board with a hole in it, and you put some slime above the hole and spread it out, it will slither down the board until some of it hits the hole. Then an amazing thing happens: even if the slime covers a much larger surface area than the hole, the lowest energy state for the slime-blob becomes one in which the entire blob MUST pass through the hole. You could call this “Collapse of the slime-function”. But the slime does not DECIDE to do that, that’s just what thermodynamics MAKES it to do. How does this relate to consciousness? It doesn’t. It’s just a physical system seeking it’s lowest energy state, in this case involving gravitational potential. Likewise, meddling with the “photon” by sticking a detector in there made it go to a lower energy state! Basic physics. Although if you think that consciousness is basically an organism seeking it’s lowest energy state – you’re right!

16. A measurement could be the result from applying – for science non-probabilistic- measure theory to a quantum system, when Russell's criticism * of set theory is resolved by substituting category identifying one or more things for set say, to assign a number for some interval, 2 = (1, 3), of uncountably infinite real numbers between 1 and 3 exclusive, for the magnitude of an entity in superposition |u》 + 《w|.

    * The set of all sets that are not elements of themselves, is a set that is not an element of itself and is not, a set that is not an element of itself ; Zermelo Fraenkel set theory does not solve this problem because there is a contradiction with the axiom of the unordered pair ; the set of element x written {x} is not an element of {x} because they are identical.

17. Close but no cigar…

18. HARDCORE SCIENCE– He is a thief, stealing ideas from others, same like chaps Newton(science historian) and Einstein.

19. If there is such a thing as a matter displacement then there must be a highly conscious agent running this (it’s own) operation. As such I respectfully disagree with the view of Mr. Penrose.

20. “There is only one conscious which is responsible for mass displacement”. — Wald Wassermann. /// I tend to agree with the above statement. There is no disorder. There is only one order. ☝️

21. that was a rat or a lizard?

Comments are closed.