this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Physics

1346 readers
2 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (8 children)

Nonsense is still nonsense. Penrose like many physicists, is speculating outside of his core expertise to his own detriment.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (7 children)

speculating outside of his core expertise

...

He's been focusing on it for like 20 years... And not on his own, he's been working with psychologists and anesthesiologists. Dude is pretty much the only physicist working at understanding consciousness, he's literally the expert

And that's not even getting into how physics is technically outside his expertise. Dudes a mathematician, he just applied that to physics, then applied physics to brains.

He doesn't claim to understand all of it, just like Einstein died before his shit was proven. Then Penrose showed up and worked with Hawking to prove a lot of Einstein's theories.

Penrose 100% accepts he won't live long enough to see his stuff finished. But he's confident it's in the right direction and if future generations keep working, some day we'll actually understand what consciousness is.

But it's not exactly easy man.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

Penrose is a physicist. Thats where his expertise lies. He is not a neuroscientist, psychologist or any other profession that is relevant. He is NOT an expert in the area he has barged into. Being competent in one field DOES NOT translate into competence in others.

You may as well ask a very good plumber about how they think the brain works.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, and I would too. Wouldn't ask you for advice though. What did Penrose do to you, anyway? Nobody should be barred from learning new fields just because they already know one. Biochemists benefit massively from AI but they're backgrounds aren't traditionally computer science

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

Biochemists arent claiming that they know AI better than AI researchers do. If you dont understand why it is dangerous to be talking about things outside of your wheelhouse then there is no arguing with you.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)