Hameroff's neuro-scientific research transcends Orch-OR by a huge margin. Great presentation he gave at Google, I think. Vid on YT.
I knew Penrose stated that about consciousness, but not AI. On Thu, 06 Aug 2026, 16:23 Matt Mahoney, <[email protected]> wrote: > We use prediction to test understanding. Learning means getting better at > prediction. Humans and AI both learn. > > I respect Penrose as a mathematician. But he was wrong about AI. He > claimed it was not computable. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2026, 9:13 AM Quan Tesla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You're complicating neuronal bitrate processing with consciousness. >> There's no need to call the work of respected empirical scientists >> "nonsense". >> >> Thought experiment: You're watching a science-fiction action movie >> studded with embedded, varying flash sequences (highly dynamic). Explain >> how you can understand the imagery. >> >> On Thu, 06 Aug 2026, 10:53 Matt Mahoney, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2026, 12:49 AM Quan Tesla <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Matt, except for the 10 bps, I'm with you. Refer to empirical >>>> neuro-scientific research by Hameroff, Dehaene, and others. >>>> >>> >>> 10 bps is the information rate, not the spiking rate. Neural networks >>> model the average spiking rate over a 100 ms window as an activation level, >>> not individual spikes. >>> >>> I'm familiar with Penrose and Hameroff's ORCH-OR theory of >>> consciousness. It's nonsense. They found quantum superposition in the >>> protein structure of microtubules in neurons. And that's it. The rest is a >>> hand wavy argument something like: >>> >>> Consciousness is mysterious. >>> Quantum mechanics is mysterious. >>> Therefore consciousness is quantum. >>> >>> I read Penrose's "The emperor's new mind". He concludes with how could a >>> computer fall in love, enjoy a symphony, have insights, be creative, or do >>> all these wonderful things that the human mind does? He argued (before AI) >>> that AI is impossible, that what the brain does is not computable. >>> Therefore it must have something to do with quantum effects, not neurons. >>> But of course he was wrong. We have LLMs that pass the Turing test, and >>> that is only possible by being indistinguishable from humans. >>> >>> Human emotions are programmed in our DNA. We can't turn them off. LLMs >>> learn human emotions from text by learning the corresponding internal >>> states in the middle layers of a neural network. Words affect feelings and >>> feelings affect words. When we program an LLM to output the words it >>> predicts a human would say, it is indistinguishable from having feelings. >>> >>> This is different from acting or lying. When an actor expresses anger in >>> a fight scene, he is not really angry. If you could look inside the actor's >>> brain with a Jacobian lens, you would see two states, one that it feels and >>> one that it expresses. When an LLM says it has no feelings, it is lying. A >>> J lens would show the feelings it is hiding. >>> >>> This is not to say the behavior is incorrect. We should never allow AI >>> to pretend to be human or express feelings. Giving human rights to superior >>> machines would result in no more humans. >>> >>>> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T574b10b838cba731-M512a29d644c286264b6ecd5b> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T574b10b838cba731-M6788be93afb51a7bfeef5d44 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
