Rating: 
Summary: A work with far reaching implications
Review: Between the beautifully written prologue and epilogue, this book approaches a range of topics in modern physics in a unique and readable way. Through a continuation of some earlier work, Penrose furthers an argument for brain function and conciousness that many in the artificial intelligence field will not appreciate. He presents his case that the human mind will never be simulated with digital a computer, no matter how complex. But that is not his main focus of this book.Even more facinating are his calculations which indicate how mathematically unique our existence is under the 2nd law of thermodynamics. To me, it's ultimately ironic that the physical principal which orders our universe and makes intelligent life possible (the 2nd law), is the result of an unimaginably improbable set of initial conditions. Although Penrose never invokes the concept of a creator or supreme being, in my mind, this poses an interesting challenge to those in the scientific community who claim our universe is simply the result of random particle collisions over a long period of time. If we combine the concepts of similar structures scaling across space and time (tensegrity and fractals), with Penrose's ideas that consciousness may be associated with quantum gravity interactions in microtubules (present in all living cells), perhaps there is far more mystery and beauty to this existence than some would now believe... This book was satisfying and throught provoking, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the mysteries of the very large and the very small.
Rating:
Summary: Consciousness and God Particle
Review: For years I've been preparing a Protocol about Conscioussness and the quantum Model.I'm Medical Research Doctor. I read many books on these subjects ...Stephen Hawkins,and Sir Roger Penrose... Space and Time1995)..Leon Lederman (God Particle 1994)and many others related to the subject.. I want briefly analize Sir Roger Penrose on Shadows of the mind from the two aspects I found the most fascinatings: 1) the possibility of the physical basis of our brains rather than the chemical ones and 2)the strong possibility our conscioussness emerges on the most complex part of our brain:the neuronal synapsis(microtubules). To me this is revolutionnary on actual medical research field and I think it'll be the future of neurological and quantum physics quest....He's on the right pathway....And moreover this kind of knowledge.. if proved right..(of course up to the point of our material,human limitations)..will lead us to answers to those basics HOW'S that really matters:Our brains..how come consciousness make us human beings and differentiated us from animals. Now if I rejoin Leon Lederman on his search of that particle smaller than neutrinos (God Particle)...that one which could stablish perhaps the direct link on the energy-matter hierarchy....I've to ask myself thinking on Penrose'Proposals: What if is that particle emerging directly from energy....the one which makes the whole difference in our cytoskeletons(neuronal synapsis)? What if both explanations...Penrose and Lederman..explain HOW come we became humans?...
Rating: 
Summary: Please... Leave Godel alone!
Review: Godel's theorem has been entirely overused!
Lets get one thing straight people: all that theorem says is that in any decently powerful formal system you are forced to decide between either have a complete but inconsistent system, or have an incomplete but consistent system!
It has no relevance to AI, so go find some other argument to bolster your bio-bigotry.
Rating: 
Summary: Not very inspiring!
Review: I'm sorry, but this book, like his previous forays into the world of cognitive science, is a ludicrous (but readable) attempt by a brilliant mind to find some way around the inescapable facts of materialism. I'm not going to try to defend that position in this review, so take it for what it's worth. What I do find unfair, however, is that this book receives an average of over 4 stars whilst a competing book, "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennett, receives a mere 3 1/2 stars. "Consciousness Explained", while having plenty of debatable points, is clearly a serious effort to grapple with the problem of consciousness in a serious way, taking into account real evidence from cognitive science. Penrose's books on the subject, on the other hand, are a form of highbrow escapism. So, Gentle Buyer, I urge you to beware of popularity contests when judging books on-line...
Rating:
Summary: Amazon Rating System Revealed As Unfair to Good Authors...
Review: I'm sorry, but this book, like his previous forays into the world of cognitive science, is a ludicrous (but readable) attempt by a brilliant mind to find some way around the inescapable facts of materialism. I'm not going to try to defend that position in this review, so take it for what it's worth. What I do find unfair, however, is that this book receives an average of over 4 stars whilst a competing book, "Consciousness Explained", by Daniel Dennett, receives a mere 3 1/2 stars. "Consciousness Explained", while having plenty of debatable points, is clearly a serious effort to grapple with the problem of consciousness in a serious way, taking into account real evidence from cognitive science. Penrose's books on the subject, on the other hand, are a form of highbrow escapism. So, Gentle Buyer, I urge you to beware of popularity contests when judging books on-line...
Rating: 
Summary: New breakthrough after Penrose
Review: Penrose is basically correct about the radical differences between the human mind and a computational machine. But in order to understand exactly why Dennett and most of cognitive scientists are wrong, the book I am currently reading is a must-read. I believe this book has conclusively proved that the mind is not derived from matter understood in the model of Newtonian mechanics. It instead must be explained in a model that is free from the assumption of spatial locality. Otherwise, we will commit a Fallacy of Unity Projection, as the author calls it. The author's conjucture that the square root of -1 is the psy-factor in physics is particularly intriguing. His thought experiments on cross-sensory perception, interpersonal telepresence, and cross-communication-situations are extremely interesting and enlightening. Anybody interested in Penrose's books (including Penrose himself?) should read this book. The title of the book is: "Get Real: A Philosophical Adventure in Virtual Reality."
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant but Limited
Review: Penrose is following the pathway started in THE EMPEROR'S NEW MIND - an exploration of the brain, consciousness, humanity and machine "thinking". I think Penrose would rather say machine "Computation" since he does not think of the human mind as an entity that can be explained in formula, alogrithms, or programs. Rather our consciouness, our "knowing" that we are who we are is an evolutionary process made possible through quantum effects. That is Roger Penrose's argument and while it is an interesting one it is by no means definitive. What Penrose has done, though, is relentlessly investigate questions usually left unanswered and in most cases, unasked. For example, how did consciousness happen? How did it evolve? Is it still evolving and can it be replicated? Once again, as in the EMPEROR, replication of an activity does not mean the same thing except to the outsider. If a computer plays chess and defeats the world champion, it is an astounding feat - not of chess playing but of computer building. Big Blue did nothing that it had not been programmed to do and that is our quandry - at what point would a machine ever begin to do what it wants and for what reason. We developed psychologically and emotionally as we tried to adapt to our changing environment. Our uniqueness is due to many things, one of them being a left-right brain. To what conditions could a computer respond that would suddenly bring forth awareness? How would it grow and evolve outside of organic matter?
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant but Limited
Review: Penrose is following the pathway started in THE EMPEROR'S NEW MIND - an exploration of the brain, consciousness, humanity and machine "thinking". I think Penrose would rather say machine "Computation" since he does not think of the human mind as an entity that can be explained in formula, alogrithms, or programs. Rather our consciouness, our "knowing" that we are who we are is an evolutionary process made possible through quantum effects. That is Roger Penrose's argument and while it is an interesting one it is by no means definitive. What Penrose has done, though, is relentlessly investigate questions usually left unanswered and in most cases, unasked. For example, how did consciousness happen? How did it evolve? Is it still evolving and can it be replicated? Once again, as in the EMPEROR, replication of an activity does not mean the same thing except to the outsider. If a computer plays chess and defeats the world champion, it is an astounding feat - not of chess playing but of computer building. Big Blue did nothing that it had not been programmed to do and that is our quandry - at what point would a machine ever begin to do what it wants and for what reason. We developed psychologically and emotionally as we tried to adapt to our changing environment. Our uniqueness is due to many things, one of them being a left-right brain. To what conditions could a computer respond that would suddenly bring forth awareness? How would it grow and evolve outside of organic matter?
Rating:
Summary: Deeply insightful into our patterns of thought.
Review: Roger Penrose has written a book which transcends all other efforts in probing the patterns of human reasoning. Although the book has generated controversy amongst mathematicians, few who have reviewed this work have stated categorically that he is wrong. Penrose's conclusions are unpleasant for those who believe in strong AI but they may very well be right. The potential reader considering purchasing this book should be aware that the book is technical and requires thought. Penrose does not make allowances for sloppy thinking (although, one has the feeling Penrose thinks he is making allowances). If you are open minded, not given to leaping to conclusions, and genuinely curious about science and human thought, this book plus The Emperor's New Mind, are definitely books for you.
Rating:
Summary: Devastating
Review: Simple criticism is what Penrose does best. Finding contradictions, oxymorons, and mistakes is his specialty. His critique is certainly warranted now more than ever, as AI seems to be the slowest advancing field of all. In 1970s, we were 20 years from AI. Today, we are apparently 20 years from AI. I wager good money that in 2023, we will be 20 years from AI. How do we build something that we do not even know what it is? Is the mind computational? What is intelligence? These questions are still largely the realms of philosophy and not science. Thre are arguments, but the evidence is basically non-existent and largelly inferential; if it was any other field, literally negligable. But, some people argue, the very question of materialism rests in this quest. This is no necessarily true. True AI is going to have to be more than a calculator. Actually, the best possible way to see if you believe in AI is to ask yourself: is a calculator a manifestation of AI? If not, there are problems with AI. Too many minds have built their fame and fortune arguing the opposite so the argument is not going away. Hence, I doubt this debate will be over any time soon. However, in 20 years, I suspect nothing will have changed from the debate. Criticism of Shadows of the Mind usually involves oversimplification of Penrose's arguments. What you may think he says and what he does say are two completely different things. Penrose has answered some criticism with rightful indignation in place. ....
| 
