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. ....
Rating: 
Summary: Not very inspiring!
Review: This book contains a nice discussion of the Gödel-theorem and some very nice parts about quantum mechanics. He is right when stating the necessity to find a theory of mind. But in my opinion the author chose a bad ratio of science to pure speculation. On the one side, it contains a lot scientific reasoning, so the reader should have some knowledge of modern physics for example. On the other side, he is just scratching on the surface of the theory, so readers with scientific background will not be satisfied and challenged at all by his descriptions (exceptions mentioned above). The author failed to explain important facts about the biological mind. Shadows of the mind is not very helpful. But it is worth to read this book just for the nice parts! I think it is not the time yet to write books on this subject for the public. Write them for the scientific community.
Rating:
Summary: General comments
Review: This book is a significant improvement on Penrose's previous writing of similar scope, "The Emperor's New Mind", especially that he has more specific ideas on the actual biological manifestations of the noncomputational processes he seeks as basis for consciousness. Even if one does not agree with his arguments, there is a great amount of information on physics and so on, written in a style that makes the book a pleasure to read. A previous review mentioned that many have opposed the logical arguments from the first part of the book. Penrose, however, has replied quite well to many criticisms (see PSYCHE, an electronic journal on consciousness), and I think it is premature to pass final judgement. For an alternative, not necessarily incompatible, view of consciousness I highly recommend "The Feeling of What Happens" by the distinguished neurologist Antonio R. Damasio (or at least check out his article "How the Brain Creates the Mind" in Scientific American, December 1999).
Rating:
Summary: General comments
Review: This book is a significant improvement on Penrose's previous writing of similar scope, "The Emperor's New Mind", especially that he has more specific ideas on the actual biological manifestations of the noncomputational processes he seeks as basis for consciousness. Even if one does not agree with his arguments, there is a great amount of information on physics and so on, written in a style that makes the book a pleasure to read. A previous review mentioned that many have opposed the logical arguments from the first part of the book. Penrose, however, has replied quite well to many criticisms (see PSYCHE, an electronic journal on consciousness), and I think it is premature to pass final judgement. For an alternative, not necessarily incompatible, view of consciousness I highly recommend "The Feeling of What Happens" by the distinguished neurologist Antonio R. Damasio (or at least check out his article "How the Brain Creates the Mind" in Scientific American, December 1999).
Rating:
Summary: A most magnificent edifice built on sand.
Review: This book is an evil-twin, good-twin combo. The first half is a rather difficult, rambling, and biased presentation of the thesis. The second half includes an excellent discussion of some aspects of quantum mechanics, although concluding with an interesting speculation proposing microtubules as the solution to his conundrum. Unfortunately Penrose shares the prevalent human hubris, rendering his objectivity dubious at best. We now know that it is not possible to determine whether a program halts at infinity or continues after it gets there. Adding more axioms will not ultimately clarify the distinction.
Penrose correctly states that non-deterministic programs do not enlarge the domain of computability. From those facts, Penrose concludes that mathematicians must use non-computable methods to reach verifiably true statements. However, either random programs or exhaustive search can construct any finite sentence, conclusion, chain of thought, or sequence of bits. Recourse to non-computability therefore does not enable us to generate more true statements, and Penrose does not show that it would help us "know that they are true." If quantum mechanics can provide access to infinity, then we MAY need to revise the notion of computability. Don't hold your breath; qubits and quantum computers don't extend the theoretical limits of computability. Penrose makes it clear in the first chapter that he is motivated by an irrational fear that machines will take over the world and enslave humans. Why should they do that? Well, that is what humans do. They why would machines be worse? No answer. Wouldn't it be better to encourage non-military reasearch in machine intelligence and robotics, teach them genuine secular ethics, etc.? Why should they share our goal of breeding to the Malthusian limit? Won't they occupy a separate and beneficial niche, like our relation with honeybees? Won't machines prefer planets and places with less water? Aren't intelligent machines the only way the legacy of our species can outlive our star (or even, with high probability, the next century)? If irrational fear is non-computable, it is also unsound. Penrose may indeed be
Rating:
Summary: A most magnificent edifice built on sand.
Review: This book is an evil-twin, good-twin combo. The first half is a rather difficult, rambling, and biased presentation of the thesis. The second half includes an excellent discussion of some aspects of quantum mechanics, although concluding with an interesting speculation proposing microtubules as the solution to his conundrum. Unfortunately Penrose shares the prevalent human hubris, rendering his objectivity dubious at best. We now know that it is not possible to determine whether a program halts at infinity or continues after it gets there. Adding more axioms will not ultimately clarify the distinction.
Penrose correctly states that non-deterministic programs do not enlarge the domain of computability. From those facts, Penrose concludes that mathematicians must use non-computable methods to reach verifiably true statements. However, either random programs or exhaustive search can construct any finite sentence, conclusion, chain of thought, or sequence of bits. Recourse to non-computability therefore does not enable us to generate more true statements, and Penrose does not show that it would help us "know that they are true." If quantum mechanics can provide access to infinity, then we MAY need to revise the notion of computability. Don't hold your breath; qubits and quantum computers don't extend the theoretical limits of computability. Penrose makes it clear in the first chapter that he is motivated by an irrational fear that machines will take over the world and enslave humans. Why should they do that? Well, that is what humans do. They why would machines be worse? No answer. Wouldn't it be better to encourage non-military reasearch in machine intelligence and robotics, teach them genuine secular ethics, etc.? Why should they share our goal of breeding to the Malthusian limit? Won't they occupy a separate and beneficial niche, like our relation with honeybees? Won't machines prefer planets and places with less water? Aren't intelligent machines the only way the legacy of our species can outlive our star (or even, with high probability, the next century)? If irrational fear is non-computable, it is also unsound. Penrose may indeed be
Rating:
Summary: Consciousness:Could it be explained by the Quantum Model?
Review: This book is one of the most exciting of its kind.To me,the best science book I ever read. When talking about human brains it is not longer a matter of Computation or the Quantum Model. It's also a quest of one of our primary needs:the knowledge of our selves.Explained from a scientific point of view.It highlights however in a certain way the spiritual dimension of human beings.Without telling us directly,Penrose introduce on the reader's mind phylosophique and religious issues,as possible links on the explanation of the whole. It's true,we can't conclude(after reading the book)we have a definitive explanation,which has been proved right.However on this book,to my knowledge,it's the first time a scientist establish the link:Our Brains:Consciousness and the Quantum Model! If I compare to others books of its kind,such as Stephen Hawkins and Sir Roger Penrose in Space and Time,1995;Leon Lederman in God Particle,1995,Fred A.Wolf in Taking the Quantum Leap,1982 and Star Wave,1984;and finally the previous book of Penrose:The Emperor's New Mind,1990 I have to conclude on the fact that Penrose,on Shadows of the Mind goes beyond frontiers others could not reach before. And I have to analyze briefly the new aspects Penrose approach in a such visionary way:1)The strong possibility that physics(of particles)could be the basis of the appearance of high intellectual functions in our brains(which is quite opposite to the traditional scientific knowledge of the chemical basis being the cause)2)The strong possibility of the emerge of the highest intellectual function:consciousness into the most complex part of our brains:the neuronal synapses(microtubules)and 3)the possibility certain human brains could react differently from the average,because of a different physical arrangement. Of course,conclusions have not ben proved yet.However R.Penrose already advance on his book as examples, some clinical experiments which uses different anaesthetic on patients who loss consciousness;in order to prove his proposal of the new physical basis being the cause of that effect. To me these proposals,if some day proved right are revolutionary on the field of science and on the knowledge of our selves. The link he suggest between the Quantum Model applied to consciousness is not only unique up to now(to my knowledge),but could be the pathway which could lead us to the comprehension of one of the most intriguing,fascinating and really unknowed mystery:Our Brains:How come our consciousness could emerge on it and make us different from animals!And moreover it allows the reader to think on others possible dimensions of his proposals. I do agree:the book isn't for everybody.We have to like the subject and have already a certain knowledge on the matter. If you belong to that category,don't miss it!It's great! (...)
Rating: 
Summary: Desperate pseudoscience
Review: Yet another author, feeling threatened by the fact that our minds are the result of real physical objects and by the possibility of AI research making clear that we arn't as magical as some of think we are, feels compelled to try to find a way to remystify things. This is clearly an attempt to try to justify the silly idea that our brains are magical, born of vanity and hoping to convince people to stop AI research.
|
