Asking a Theoretical Physicist About the Physics of Consciousness | Roger Penrose | EP 244
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июн 2024
- Dr. Peterson recently traveled to the UK for a series of lectures at Oxford and Cambridge. This conversation was recorded during that period with Sir Roger Penrose, a British mathematical physicist who was awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics for “discovering that black hole formation is a robust predictor of Einstein’s general relativity.”
Moderated by Dr. Stephen Blackwood.
___________
Chapters
___________
[0:00] Intro
[1:00] Is Consciousness Computational?
[3:20] Turing Machines
[6:30] Determinism & the Arrow of Time
[12:15] Consciousness & Reductionism
[17:30] Emergent Randomness & Evolution
[23:00] The Tiling Problem, Computation, & AI
[29:30] Escher, Brains, Bach
[39:00] Pattern Recognition & Intuition
[45:30] Mathematical Representations & the Physical World
[54:00] Collapsing Schrodinger’s Equation
[1:00:00] Consciousness-Independent Reality
[1:07:00] Black Holes & Time Horizons
[1:15:00] Einstein’s Biggest Mistake
[1:27:00] Meaning & Consciousness
[1:39:00] Hawking Spots: Potential
// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //
Newsletter: linktr.ee/DrJordanBPeterson
Donations: jordanbpeterson.com/donate
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyself.com
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
// LINKS //
Website: jordanbpeterson.com
Events: jordanbpeterson.com/events
Blog: jordanbpeterson.com/blog
Podcast: jordanbpeterson.com/podcast
// SOCIAL //
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus #podcast #consciousness #rogerpenrose #physics #mathematics
For all the problems of the modern world, the fact that I can so easily listen in on a conversation between two minds such as Penrose and Peterson makes me feel blessed.
I rhink Dr. Peterson is postulating whether ir not there are other algorithms possible to arrive at consciousness if it is mathematically driven.
How true
@@docmacdvet I Think Prof Roger is Saying Maths will Expose that the AI is Not Human Consciousness but Many Humans may Not be able to Differentiate.
Interesting Topic.
Huuuuah ?
Kidding. 👍
Despite being a brilliant mathematician, Nobel laureate physicist, worldly acclaimed academic, I love how willing Sir Roger is to say "I don't know"
Anyone who is honest knows there are things that we know, things that we don't know , things we know we don't know and things we don't know that we don't know because how could we ?
The smarter and more knowledgable you are, the more you know that there are countless things you dont know.
Only a stupid man knows everything, because he isn't even aware of how small his knowledge is.
And that's the greatest pain of scientists (any field), when trying to answer one unknown, you end digging up 10 new unknown.
i allways wondered why it is SO DIFFICULT fir people that i ask a lot and they get angry when they dont know an answer instead of just saying "i dont know"
In my sales career, I have been told that my clients truly appreciate my willingness to tell them, “I don’t know, but what I do know is that I can find the answer”
@@jakem5782 thats good
He is 90 years old and he is talking about advanced physics. That is another level of badass!
It'd be even more impressive if he was three years old👀
@@kkath_greenmachine No it won't . It would be illogical, because it would require an intervention of some inhuman force, and would be fit for nothing but animation movie for kids, or a horror movie, or something that silly.
But we can see here is a reality that shows what the human brain muscle could do if you keep training it. And reality, in my humble opinion, is far more impressive than animation movies and horror shows :)
He's able to do that because he didn't decide to give up on his career when he reached retirement age, unlike 95% of westerners.
@@kkath_greenmachine Well.... he WAS 3 years old.... 88 years ago!
Why surprise? Our President is also 80 years old too. Still ruling the world.
What I LOVE about this talk is that questions are asked, they listen intently to each other until they have a good understanding, then there is answer. Nobody is getting self-righteous, or annoyed. THIS, my friend, is GREAT conversation!
This intrigues me and makes me think a lot about AI possible characteristics.
@@antoniosantiago22 it's all in perception
@@antoniosantiago22 Peterson was clearly trying to introduce ideas to tie together solid, working theories.
There can be a debate about his ability to do so, but suggesting he was "overcomplicating" things is, at best, reductive.
I had the same thought.
@@AppleOfThineEye There isn't a debate. In this case, Peterson has NO ability to make any sort of working theory out of the words of one of the greatest living physicists and mathematicians. He is way, WAY out of his depth.
Compare the way he interviews Penrose to the way Lex Fridman and Joe Rogan did. That is, they kept quiet a lot more.
i appreciate peterson's courage to ask blindly in a field not his own. you can see a childlike eagerness and curiosity to know more.
@@Theactivepsychos I know right? At least Peterson recognises it and adjusts somewhat, its a real intelligent discourse.
That and if not intimidation, reverence.
@@Theactivepsychos I don't think it's that. It's just that Penrose seems more of a balanced thinker who has learnt the limits of his conscious capability.
JP has a craving for absolutes in topics he's well-informed and uninformed in, whereas Penrose seems to have come to terms with certain fundamental questions going unanswered in his lifetime, so knows where to stop inquiry and thus comes off as more humble.
I wouldn't paint JP in an arrogant light though, nor Penrose as particularly humble.
@@Theactivepsychos I don't think it's that, because JP definitely backtracks and tries to understand as much as he can.
At the end of the day, it's just different approaches to learning and analysis, not egotistical predisposition.
@@Theactivepsychos and what does that have to do with this lecture? Now you're the one just looking to back his pre-built conclusions.
Never thought I would understand Dr. Penrose's answer more than Dr. Peterson's questions.
"i still dont think it´s the same thing". Peterson often uses examples and metaphors that are too wide for the case. Penrose has a single clear notion of what this "is not", therefore batting down most analogies
@@Mcgernica i feel like penrose would have been open to exploring wide reaching metaphors and connections to other concepts in they had been more on point. he often noticed peterson was missing the point and clarified that hes open to changing the subject so long as its explicit and no connections are are implied between the two subjects
What Penrose understands and talks are the most difficult concepts a human being can grasp and describe. And Perterson is not a physicist.
@@Oxydron yeah but they were both keeping it on the philosophy side. penrose was very careful to avoid shutting peterson down with actual physics and kept it to just briefly clarifying theorems and theories as it pertained to petersons philosophical interpretation. honestly peterson did not look like a professional academic that had time to prepare for this interview. maybe his schedule didnt allow it? stuck in his own interpretation of things several times in a row like a 101 student if you ask me.
@@Oxydron if theres a physicist out their that can bring complex concepts from physics into the realm of philosophy with the right conversation its penrose. and petersons reverence towards penrose suggests that he in fact prepared a lot for this interview but in a way thats very self involved. but thats just me getting into not liking peterson as an intellectual celebrity. and maybe penrose is getting too old to feild this kind of interview
Although the interview flapped during the first part, and the guest is aware of it, annoyed by the questions, the conversation improves when he speaks of his memories and experiences, but he is misunderstood or asked questions that do not relate to his field. He is strictly about physics, a genius! I thoroughly enjoyed listening to him towards the end, I think that we all learned a lot from this interview, including Peterson. We don't know what we don' t know.
The questions weren’t annoying, they were challenging, that may be why u didn’t like it
Annoying to a brilliant mind? Don’t think so bro honestly
@@mouthfulofmacno, they didn’t like it because the first half was full of confusion and misunderstanding, along with partial rudeness
Thanks for this. I was about to switch "off" having watched 20 minutes of JP trying too hard to wrangle randomness into non-computability.
Thirty years ago when I was in grad school (physics), a philosophy professor asked me to lunch to discuss a concept that was bothering him. He asked about a statement he read that a photon feels no time. Watching this discussion I'm fascinated that Jordan seems to have focused on the same concept. The discussion ended up covering many aspects of physics and beyond. It was obviously memorable.
First time I have heard Jordan sound more like the child rather than the father. Great conversation. Was nice to see Jordan's child like curiosity come out. Penrose is "off the scale" intelligent.
Jordan showed us he is unable to understand a shit about what Penrose work is about, and the Jordan has a collection of basic, disconnected, uncompleted pieces of knowledge about computability, AI, conciousness etc. It is the first time I have seen Peterson saying ridicolous and out of the scope things.
@@JordiLinares you didn't understand their conversation, or how understanding develops through conversation. Dr Peterson has an IQ roughly the size of your bank balance, so any respect for your comment is only from the ignorant and stupid.
@@JordiLinares dont we all?
Goes to show the scale of holes in this type of knowledge from jordan and the intelligence to actually connect the dots that he has to fully grasp what he is missing
You could also see it from a positive perspective: how cool is it that Jordan surrenders and permitted himself to act like a thirsty shild squeezing out the last single drip of Penrose
@@JordiLinares You expect Peterson to know and understand everything? Even things outside his field?
This guy is 91 years old. To maintain this level of mental wherewithal and wit in his advanced age is any thinking persons dream.
wherewithal is a cool word😊
Amen to that.
Likely he never daydreamed a moment of any day in his life but instead engaged intensely continuously in deep thought every second of his life. He might even be obsessively thoughtful.
I give Penrose a lot of credit for having so much patience with Peterson's dumb ass questions/challenges. Really wasted the man's time
@@avigindratt7608 that’s such an arrogantly ignorant thing to say
Simply wonderful. Thank you very very much. It is an immense pleasure to hear Sir Roger giving clear answers, as "No" or "I don't know"
Roger clearly explained his position in the first few moments, and they spent another 20 mins trying to understand it
Yup lol. I don't think he wants to be there either, because his take on the whole matter is simple and short. It claims nothing beyond what it says, it's not speculative and it's not open-ended the way the other two men are trying to make it out to be
@@sen7826 useful things come from extrapolation
I am going to sit through this and pretend I understand every word of it.
Listen to penrose on Joe rogan, lex fridman and Sean carrol as well. That way u can triangulate what he's saying and build a picture that makes sense without having to understand the micro details. Also penrose book the emporers new mind is quite accessible
Me too
Same. But I’m intrigued that I’m intrigued. So I’ll stick around and see what happens.
Hahaha
@m_train1 🧘🏻♀️
Jordan and Roger were definitely talking past each other on several occasions, meaning the same thing but using a different type of language. Still a great conversation to listen to. Two of my heroes talking to each other.
I got the feeling that Penrose has a way deeper understanding of these issues. Jorden is brilliant, but even he was out of his depth here...
@@viktordoe1636 the only issue being Penrose even with his library of knowledge isnt willing to openly talk about the spiritual or metaphysical in public due to his reputation and knighthood so the issues at hand will never be solved by him🤷♂️
They were talking past each other and JBP was way out of his depth at the start. I felt Penrose was holding back quite a bit and only spoke in terms of physics and mathematics nothing more… it shut the conversation down quite a few times
@@ismaeleo I think JBP didn't do his "homework". He obviously had no idea what superposition means or what the collapse of the wave function entails. He seems to think that non-determinism or randomness is the essence of conciousness, which was show stopper for Penrose.
Different universes, differences brain hemispheres. Embarrassing to watch.
I never imagine myself getting interested in this topic even though I flunked out of college. Sir Roger is Amazing
Just because you’re a bad student doesn’t mean that you’re stupid. It just means you’re undisciplined, which is a trait you can improve on.
Yeah the fact you flunked out of college is precisely why I never imagined you getting interested in this topic.
Yeah@@FaxanaduJohn
Thank you for this interview, so many references. Abundance of knowledge, yet so concise. Bless you all.
After quitting my philosophy studies in university 10 years ago because I was bored out of my skull most of the time, I didn‘t think I would ever get this excited about a 100 minute long recording of 3 older men in a poorly lit room discussing intellectual topics.
Lol right? These guys certainly deserve some comfy chairs and a fireplace or something🔥🤣❤️
You were bored studying philosophy?! I thought one will get exasperated rather than bored…
ii am no interlect but at least they simplify it enough for us to get a grasp
Will Peterson, please, tackle Spiral?
Seriously.
@@melaniaborzan8889 it is literally the major for those unable to make it in a real major. The modern equivalent of a degree in gossip (socialite).
I enjoy how careful and precise Roger Penrose is to make an erroneous connection between two seemingly related topics. As a physicist, he is concerned with the facts and reality, it is very much the case that two physics concepts are in fact very different, or else they would only require one law. He is concerned utmost with being factually correct, so as not to undermine his existing body of work and his own credibility as a Nobel Prize-winning scientist.
Contrary, Peterson plays with the framework of ideas, he draws the gist out of incredibly complicated ideas from many different fields and tries to refine his mental representations by adding similar examples, very Feynman method-like, and an example of multi-modal analysis. Jordan aims to find universal truths that can be reached across multiple levels of analysis from different fields, despite not specializing or understanding the finer mechanics of those fields.
This interview very much demonstrated the Harris vs. Peterson divide on the definition of truth. Penrose takes this as empirical, whereas Jordan is more open to metaphorical and narrative truths.
this is all true however I have a strange feeling Dr Peterson is trying a bit too hard here. It seems as Penrose is getting slightly annoyed at some of the attempts.
I agree with your observation. I believe both of their approaches are important because I think every human wrestles with life and ideas in these ways. Of course some more so empirically and some more relatively.
This is a really nice way of saying Jordan is completely lost and grabbing for straws.
@@heywayhighway lol seemed like he grasped quite a bit for having never studied advanced mathematical physics before. As well as asked good questions and was forthright with the concepts he was struggling to grasp until he was satisfied. And then he related these concepts that were new to him to concepts he knows very well... You know, kinda like anyone who enjoys talking with others about complex ideas?
@@heywayhighway isn't it weird how easily people get salty and become haters online? What do you think makes people spend time online just trying to put others down?
Understanding is something which requires consciousness... This is such a great relief in whole podcast. Thanks Roger. 😊
However, what is the source of human Consciousness?
@@steveflorida5849 I think there is no source and "It ' is the source.. the intelligent mind or what we call matrix.
@@abhinavkumar8396 so you claim there is no source, and then say "it" is the source of human Consciousness.
What is IT?
@@steveflorida5849 well according to Bible I think "It" is God ... Or the Creator. He created human consciousness even.
At the point you don't know you should say you don't know
What a wonderful discussion. Jordan, if this Jordan could turn up to every meeting and every discussion you had … your ability to influence the world would expand by an order of magnitude. What a lovely Jordan to be in the presence of. So it’s to know he is always there … and how can we get how can we get him to always be there.
I am so thankful that people like me can have access to this kind of thought provoking and educational discussions between people of great merit like Roger and Jordan. What a privilege and blessing. I feel so fortunate.
Don't overdo it.
True
its only our legacy, and something that should have been being done since the advent of television
i don't consider myself lucky as much as consider myself owed
I was thinking the same thing. What a world we live in where we can be a fly on the wall in a conversation like this.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. Acts 16:31
Penrose is brilliant. He is wonderfully straight forward, intelligent and unpretentious.
Yes when jordon spoke of the collapse penrose is saying that basically consciousness is emergent that inclines that things can affect it but the conscious cannot affect things. The pattern birds fly in is because of the birds , the pattern itself does not create the bird. That’s why telekinesis is not real but physical reality causing hallucinations is real
All people with true intellect are unpretentious.
You forgot he doesn't look at Jordan once!
He's spectrum!
Those people might be intellectual but they lack in basic human relations!
Hello....it's called the fucking soul
How can brilliant people be so dumb and clueless!
@@JeanneCiampa What are you talking about, get off those drugs, he looks at him multiple times while explaining Peterson’s silly doubts about Escher’s drawings and so on. Jordan overdoes his confidences persona so much that the other person looks a bit odd without context.
This is probably one of the most amazing videos I have watched in a long time. I have pondered the existence of the universe since I was a child, and I have hypothesized the exact thoughts Penrose spoke of near the end of this video. I have thought of both the expanding and collapsing theory and the this continual theory many times. I could not put it into mathematical or scientific language as Penrose did though. This is amazing, thank you.
This is delightful. I could listen to these two forever.
I’m not an academic but for some reason listening and watching this discussion made my heart sing. Pure joy for me. Thank you to you BOTH!
I'm with you on that! 😀
Might not be in an academic field but you sound academic to me. Getting excited about the pursuit of knowledge might be the core of academia
I felt exactly the same!!
Pure curiosity and wonder I think
They're both amazing story tellers, extremely expressive and the best at what they do. They resonate passion.
Damn this man is sharp for his age. My granddad (bless his soul) only got to live to the age of 79 and in his last 3 years he deteriorated to such a degree that he couldn't function at all. It was sad to witness. Sir Penrose is 90 now (almost 91) and he talks about stuff in a very clear way which most adults aren't able to do. Amazing.
Use it or lose it😎
A lesson for us all.
Penrose reminds me of Alan Dershowitz, Alan is very sharp for his age. 80 something. He does vlogs on Rumble called the Dershow.
The brain is a muscle and he’s the Arnold Schwarzenegger of physics
definitely sharp for a 90-year old. Queen Elizabeth II was incredibly sharp right up until her death recently.
I went to a lecture of Roger a few months ago and the way he talks you would think he was 30 or 40 years younger.
I’ve been looking all over for this talk,Much Gratitude for those Who posted this.💐
I am absolutely glued.. I need this knowledge snd opinions and all of it... Jordan Peterson, you are the best therapist I've ever had. You will be remembered for your fight for truth when the world tried to bury ethics in medicine and science. You are leading a war against corruption by using compassion and logic. This is a direct example of knowledge being the true power. Continue to be like water flowing over rocks until they wear down to sand. We love you and your amazing family. 🤍
I've never seen Dr Jordan Peterson so on the edge of his seat, asking questions and getting excited to hear what will be said or explained. I think it shows the true nature of Sir Roger Penrose' intelligence, and knowledge in general on these subjects. And just how interesting a subject it is.
I thought the same, and if anything Peterson I could tell was to an extent intimidated and a bit nervous as not to come across too uninformed (although he is out of his wheel house and just curiously picking his brain for added detail to his own philosophies). This guy's intelligence is off the handle.. I mean at his age he's surely declined a good amount from his prime and still he maintains a genius IQ.. just makes me wonder his genius when he was younger.
Also I couldn't help but notice how tightly Penrose kept his statement within what he knows and didn't entertain or go down rabbit holes of philosophy or assumptions. Tbh I felt that slightly annoying as I'd like to here what his assumptions beyond what he knows would be a bit more, but I respect how much integrity he has when speaking of things we simply don't know.
Peterson's demeanor does not reflect on anything other than Peterson is a complete ninny.
@@TailoredReaction lol okay.. I don't agree with everything he says, but he certainly isn't a fool.
@@dartskihutch4033 Jordan Peterson is a complete embarrassment to Canada. The stories I could tell you about him from 20 - 25 years ago, long before he became such a hero to the Trump crowd down south. One thing for absolute certain, Jordan Peterson IS NOT an intellect. Don't be fooled by his verbal salads.
People giving their opinion , no matter how uridite, I not a reason to be intimidated. Love to learn, and like listening to the same. Pomposity is no virtue. Good here.
This man's mind is a goldmine, and it needs to be mined completely before hes gone.
Long live Sir Roger Penrose, one of the greatest minds alive today.
What an optimistic comment!
but on point. The significance of Penrose's perspective is vastly under appreciated by the modern physics community, possibly because of its bizarre and totally illogical faith that fundamental physics is more likely accessible via high energy physics. I have a degree in the subject so neither expert nor layman, but I have read extensively in English and maths everything I could find to justify this belief and so far I have only found poorly constructed Sophistry.
a gold mind, if you will
Dont focus on the person…focus on his ideas cause they do sure can live for ever…
@@Ging_10 yeah of course, I think that entirely misses the point of the comment. He tends to only speak of what he's quite certain, but there will be a much larger wealth of thinking which would best be teased out in interviews etc. before they are lost. He has had a very unique position in a unique juncture of history.
If you don't know what's different and therefore why your totally generic cookie cutter comment isn't particularly useful here, best learn a bit more about his theories and history first.
I love Jordans profound curiosity for life experiences…consciousness, where the mind is and so on human behaviors
Well, he is a psychologist....
Yep.... you gotta be a smart dude, just to ask either of these guys a question! I've heard all my life that there are "no dumb questions!" That is the DUMBEST statement ever made!
Where are you from?
i disagree with "that is the dumbest statement ever made" what's dumb about that statement@@martyfoster7053
Dr Jordan gradually realizes how smart and intimidating the presense of this man is. He gradually adjusted the conversation from the colleague tone to being a good and engaging student. It takes a lot of humility and self awareness to do this on the spot on camera. Many healthy cognitive functions interacted to produce this. I would say Ti + Ne + Si + Fe stack.
I really wanted to understand something here but nope, not one word. 😮
uhuh, thought the same thing
also regarding this, it's super coincidential that there was a subsect of this conversation about intuition (Ti) and how it encompasses an ability to jump through layers of logic via pattern recognition
My admiration and love to Roger Penrose after this conversation have increased , he has so an incredible and humble mind. My blessings to him.
It's super difficult to find a cocky briton, I can attest to that.
And patience… 😃
Dr. Peterson’s humility is refreshing. Never afraid to put his ideas out there. He is acutely aware of other points of view and and willing to adapt and refine his ideas. Always learning and progressing.
so , an adult
@@RR-et6zp a quite rare thing this days
He does well in this room!
Hardly, he spouts off on topics he has no idea about all the time - economics, and now philosophy of mind. To top it off, he asks a physicist about consciousness which is like asking a sprinter about skiing.
@@Camcolito Roger penrose has been working on consciousness for over a decade, WTF are you on about?
thanks ! Sir Penrose is a calm, brilliant man in Physics and a paradigm of applying Platonic thinking. Math related to higher forms. TThanks Dr Peterson for participating on behalf of consciousness,
Yes. This was the frustrating element in the first part of the conversation. Penrose is trying to restrict the conversation of understanding-consciousness to a non-psychological set/domain (discounting any Uncertainty/material uncertainty/determinism etc.) and stating that, even within this domain (I see why Plato/Ideals/Ideas/rationalism etc. is a good descriptor here) there is an issue of consciousness regarding its assumption of proofs according to how it arrives at those proofs etc. etc. I don’t have the fundamental understanding to meet either of these positions/thinkers in full, but this differentiation was never really ironed out and was very frustrating to watch.
So engaging. Two famous people who are discussing weighty subjects of great importance - and BOTH are acknowledging their "don't know" perspective. Great video.
And just like that, Dr Peterson casually drops a conversation of a lifetime... As I was listening to Sir Roger's explanation of his model of the universe, man, awe and gratitude were the only things in my mind. Once again, thank you for everything, Dr Peterson.
@@nuqwestr Penrose had to spend much of his time saying "that is not what I'm saying." Peterson kept trying to get Penrose to say something that fits his theist narrative and Penrose would not go there. Luckily, Peterson gave it a rest after a while and stopped trying steer Penrose.
@@markstipulkoski1389 Yeah, and how many times did he have to say, "I don't think I understand the question."? Ridiculous conversation.
@@markstipulkoski1389 at what point was theism ever a part of this conversation?
@@markstipulkoski1389 Where was theism in this? Is there some other conversation I missed?
@@CleverMetaphor I did not state theism was discussed. Jordan Peterson and Stephen Blackwood are both theists. Roger Penrose is a self- described agnostic, which means he sees no evidence of the existence of a god or gods, and thinks that the question is logically unknowable. I'm with Penrose and I know the arguments of theists. JP/SB tried to twist RP view that consciousness is not computational to mean that it cannot be derived from the physical world. RP later used his tiling example to clarify what "non-computational" means to mathematicians and that it doesn't mean that it ultimately can't be understood. At 52:15, RP states that "consciousness is not YET part of current physics." So Roger is not a dualist. JP/SB also tried to go down the path that conscious observers are needed to collapse the quantum mechanical wave function and so consciousness is necessary for our universe to exist. Theist say God is the first cause, the first conscious observer that collapsed the wave function. A silly argument in that a true God would not be bound by the QM laws that He created. Anyway, RP explicitly stated that universes dont require conscious observers. JP/SB were looking for confirmation of their theist beliefs from a Nobel prize winning mathematician/physicist but they did not get that.
Peterson's openness is on display here. A few of the connections he makes across domains don't land, but some do, and they enrich the conversation
I was just thinking about how this aspect of Peterson might be one of the reasons I find his conversations so interesting. He has a mode of thinking that seems to be very rare among scientist/intellectual communicators. When very intelligent people talk with him he makes lateral moves that nobody sees coming. It's like he's a master jazz musician, and when he closes his eyes and twiddles his fingers he's improvising a phrase that the other musicians don't see coming.
That's one his great strengths. Also sometimes a weakness though, as it can make him drift far off-topic. Which is great fun if you are just listening casually, but I imagine could have been hard for his students to follow.
That's an important aspect of his intellectual process. He is willing to attempt making connections in front of an audience and is comfortable with the possibility some may not land.
This is very valuable for intellectual progress. I've read a few times that a problem in modern academia is that all domains are so specialized that they have formed bubbles around them and rarely interact with each other, and it is indeed frowned upon if you, coming from a discipline, write bout another you are not an expert in. In the past they had greater interactivity and a lot of groundbreaking results come from these types of interactions.
Which ones land?
Just started listening! Man this is an intense exchange. I am so glad to be able to listen to it.
When Penrose really gets going he's a wizard.and very eloquent.
This is fantastic to see these two amazing gents talking together. Coincidentally I recently passed my PhD (mostly AI related) and quoted both Jordan Peterson and Roger Penrose in my thesis! :)
Congratulations! Jordan would be proud of you. 🙂
Well done !
Well done 👏
Congrats Man!
I'm surprised the university didn't fry you for daring to mention Peterson
It’s interesting to see Sir Roger tame Dr. Peterson in his eagerness to understand the questions he’s asking him. You can clearly see that Penrose is the teacher and Peterson is the student here. You can tell he is so excited just listening and learning from him.
Sir Roger is not able to articulate his ideas as clearly and on the same level as Jordan Peterson. So in another way, Jordan has to come down to his level too.
@@shaunmcinnis566 okay so I was thinking it was something like this though,
To me it looks like Roger is older than Peterson, and so he’s little slower, especially verbally like you said. So I think he Dosent want jordan to try anything crazy, like in the beginning jordan used the word “faith” and roger didn’t like that,
I think there’s some tension between the two of them because they are on two different paradigms. Roger, the computational physics side, and jordan the transcendent psychology
@@thomasgarman6353 Good point.
Dr. Jordan was very much his usual self, I also felt that Penrose certainly did seem to want tom curb his enthusiasm, however I do not think curbing enthusiasm is the mark of a good teacher.
You can see Peterson's lateral thinking here when contrasted with how Penrose seems to think, which is very logically, but not at all analogical. Peterson is making perfectly legitimate connections, IMHO, and ones I've heard in nascent form elsewhere, but in Penrose's mind they are separate and distinct issues, one in this box and one in the other. Both brilliant but in very different ways.
It's extremely hard to have a casual chat with a top physicist I suppose, he'll constantly ask you to clarify or correct you :). Nice interview, thank you!
Mr. Peterson... What a privilege to be engage in such a varied and deep discussion and privilege for me to observe. But...! Listening to Sir Roger's words, tone and observing his demeanour, I cannot help but think that he has some thoughts about some subjects that he decided not to mention. I am sure those thoughts would have been just as intriguing and potentially controversial. This was an excellent discussion that has challenged me to find a connection between all that was discussed in this video and the spiritual realm... Never stop thinking.
If you take a step back and look at this moment objectively, it is so beautiful and what a privilege it is to be alive at a time where this conversation was both possible, as well as documented for us to watch for free.
This conversation could have just as easily never manifested itself for an endless, countless slew of reasons...but it did.
Thank you, Dr. Peterson.
@@psychcowboy1 Sir Roger Penrose was the one answering with intelligent answers posed by Dr. Peterson's thoughtful questions, while Dr. Peterson was in the role of the one who was using his genuine curiosity and awe, playing the role of the interviewer as well as student.
He asked questions for the lot of us, given the opportunity to sit down with a man of that caliber, in his 90s.
And I thanked Dr. Peterson for making this conversation possible. Because it was most certainly not Sir Roger Penrose who sought out Dr. Peterson to schedule time to sit down for an interview.
Hope that explained.
@@Kroitk this is a great way to respond to that question you handled that well, and I agree 100% with your summation I love conversations like this what a privilege for us
@@psychcowboy1 not as thoughtful and deep as your name Molecule boulder.
and here you are again to troll people... get a life...
Happened all the time in the 60s 70s and 80s on Public and Access channells.
Weekend tv.
Oh what privilege we have as a society that we can listen to the conversation of such gentlemen. What a privilege to be able to rewind and play it back as well.
You've watched it TWICE?!
Spot on!
Thankful for technology.
I pause more than rewind. I can’t keep up with the processing speed of these guys. I need a break to process every few minutes, or seconds.
This is a great conversation between two of the greatest minds in recent history! Wonderful!😊👍
This is gold! I am so glad and grateful I found this content💖
Imagine being in a presence of Sir Penrose and Jordan Peterson... Its like watching your heart and brain having a discussion
Wonderful way of putting it!
I couldn't have said it any better 😅
@@phasespace4700 The scope of your thinking, the scope of ignorance.
I doubt even 0.1% of people in the comments have a brain that could honestly feel kinship wuth Penrose (myself included in the 99.9%).
The guy is a legend, albeit a far less popularly known one vs the likes of Hawking.
I learned about this guy first when visiting an exhibit of MC Escher artwork and found out he had collaborated with Penrose on at least one occasion.
Basically Comic-Con for uber nerds🤔
We need more people like Penrose! He is really thinking outside the box. He doesn't put assumptions on all the things he learned, like many smart people still do. We need more people like him, who is curious and ask the right questions. He truly knows where the black spots are in our knowledge. He points them out clearly. We are watching a genious of our time. 200 years from now he will be known because he was one of the few who understood how little we know and where we should look
I agree. If humans prevail, future scientists will explore these initial ideas by Penrose and find a new science
Or he will have been shown to be wrong. Thats how science works. Yay science
His real strength is clarity
@@darricshhh something we have lost recently in the rush to accept science as absolute.
Well I’m 24 minutes in and Penrose has yet to communicate any intelligible ideas in the English language. He has just been repeating that he knows everyone else is wrong on the topic of consciousness, but cannot explain why. In what way does that reflect his intellectual ability? I can only speak for my personal conscience experience, but I think this way about ideas on a daily basis. I can answer a question that can be done with calculation correctly without doing the calculations with any sort of equation. How is that different from photo machine learning? Can you “understand” without visualization in your mind? Try it…let me know how that works out for you.
I felt like Peterson was outside of his wheelhouse (and said as much) when it came to quantum physics and general relativity and he spent a lot of time trying to find psychological and physiological comparisons at the beginning.
I really did enjoy his explanation of his theory of the cosmos! (Einstein’s mistake part, onward) The end of infinite expansion (photon soup) is equivalent to the beginning of the expansion (also a photon soup). Very interesting! I really can’t believe Jordan gave up the thread at that point - that’s where my interest really peaked.
Roger lives with cosmological timelines in his head; where the Milky Way black hole collides with Andromeda and another observer confirms his hypotheses in the next eon.
Jordan’s focus on consciousness and human realizations seemed a bit too meta-physically vague for Roger. The hunt for meaning is such a small subset in his bath of mathematical truths in the cosmos. I think for him, meaning = objects + rules / spacetime
We can't REALLY understand Einstein without sir Roger Penrose.... 92 years so sharp, unbelievable. amazing.
thanks, brilliant one .🙌❤️🌠
Only wish is to let him speak, and finish his thought. JP interupts all the time
What did u understand?
This is the type of discussion that gives me a huge amount of hope for the future. The audience is pulled along for a ride and respected, not belittled. It says this topic is serious and should be respected, and the audience deserves to hear what has to be said. So often the corporate press treats the audience as though they are children and give them watered down version of what is to be said. This is not the case in this instance.
There is no future if we won’t stop “decolonising science” and think that math is racist. I know or hope that this is propagated by loud minorities but for some idiotic reason universities around the world bend over to this ideology.
Then you should pick a better conversation with Penrose and someone else than Peterson. Peterson only have a personal agenda. Real scientist has not. Penrose is an excellent scientist who got the Nobel prize.
@Postmortem Colonoscopy no he doesnt
@Postmortem Colonoscopy contempt in what sense? That it’s inadequate? Excessive or something else?
Aren't we all so fortunate to be able to listen in and watch a conversation like this?
I agree.what role emotions play is what I'm thinking.the pianist plays different ly just because he she feels like it.holds a note a little more.plays more dramatically just because the mood suggest s it?
Yes and understand the conversations and agree and disagree with or solve some of the systems, words and other forms spoken about as I enjoy doing without having any titles or over the education of time lost in some cases with those
kind of humans if, in fact, you would call them that rather than nuts, eccentrics or whatever? I say that with respect to what I have been referred to over my life as a nut etc even bipolar when called that I say no Tripolar I am smarter than just a 2 polar being while I am looking at the 2polar person calling me bipolar the stupid ass.
Yes, crazy to think just 40 years ago only a select few people would get to witness this. Now nearly the whole world can get unfettered access.
Great interview, good it has somebody intelligent and respectful as Jordan, intelligent to understand and apply logic to a science that is not his forte, and respectful to ask clarificarion on ambiguity instead of letting it pass and not thruly learning what the professor is trying to explain.
WOW!!!! That was one of the best talks I have ever heard, much less watched! 2 big brains from their own respective specialties hashing out reality, what a chat!
I'm so happy Sir Roger Penrose dedicated some of his precious time to have this discussion with Jordan Peterson! Considering the huge popularity of the latter, it sure will bring questions about physics, cosmology and the "hard problem of consciousness" to a large audience, which is great. More discussions like this one. More!
Cut with the hero worship. This was a meeting of two men, two clever humans. But Penrose was like an intellectual automaton.
@@thedolphin5428 I don't "worship heroes", I just made a comment about a discussion I found very interesting. If you have time to waste in unpleasant replies to comments, that's your problem.
16mins into the conversation and my brain is already fried. Penrose is extremely smarter than I expected before watching the interview. And Jordan never disappoints either. The attention to details… the choice of words…. I’m speechless
I'm 14 minutes in, so I expect Penrose will astound me in the next 2 minutes. So far he's clarified that he's not talking about the hard problem of consciousness but just understanding, and claims that it can't be a result of computation. But if you take Wittgenstein's analysis of understanding and a cognitive scientist's analysis of sensorimotor feedback loops, I don't see why understanding can't be accounted for computationally. Understanding, as opposed to phenomenal consciousness, is deemed one of the "easy problems of consciousness" (Chalmers) precisely because we can see how computation could account for understanding in principle. His interpretation of Gödel is also unfamiliar. Sounds metaphorical at best.
23:00 he gives an example of non-computability, which is just the halting problem. Imagine an algorithm that just keeps computing and never yields an answer. That's a problem on idealized Turing machines, but not on wetware. Is his claim that if you can understand things that can't be computed, your understanding is non-computational? That doesn't follow. You can have a concept of infinity without counting to infinity. The concept itself still bears its syntactic relations in thought and is computed qua concept and not qua an infinitude.
The first 20 minutes are easy to get lost on because Jordan Peterson and roger penrose are talking past each other. Jordan is asking to specific a question when roger is only making a general argument. This gets resolved around 21:00 and the conversation moves on
Me too….I’m lost and I’m following every word so far 😂
You didn’t expect Penrose to be a genius? Aha
Really?, his professor of QM was Dirac, and he named a myriad of the greatest Nobel prize recipients and their conversations. Penrose is one of the big brains of the last century "smarter than I expected " is an inexplicable sentence
Penrose seems to be exercising every bit of physically conscious patience in this interview.
I'd see it the other way around. Jordan laid out some good thoughts and Penrose couldn't seem to get his head around the angle in which Jordan was approaching it. Penrose was speaking like a math equation and Jordan was speaking from the philosophical side and Penrose couldn't understand the intersection of the two. Jordan saying "I'm not understanding" is a polite way of saying "You aren't getting my point, please elaborate more"
@@OfLastingThunderWhich is another way of saying that Peterson was operating only within the very limited scope of his own understanding, intent on trying to demonstrate his own point of view,, rather than just asking open questions.
@gawa9254 the questions he asked were quite simple and straight forward. Penrose sounded as though he wanted to assert his intellect by "correcting" every question. You've met these people and this is what they sound like. It's annoying.
@@OfLastingThunderIt's of no consequence whether Peterson's questions are or are not simple. It's completely plausable to look dumbfounded when the questions you are receiving have little to do with what you are saying.
@@OfLastingThunderNo Penrose was getting annoyed because Jordan made it look like he had questions but he was actually talking alone about subjects that were far from the initial assessment. Penrose couldn't elaborate that way and it's obvious that you should humble down when you speak with someone like Penrose, as Penrose's IQ must at least double Jordan's. When it comes to consciousness, Penrose should have had more time to speak, as it's his domain. I really like Jordan's conferences about psychology and I agree with him most of the time by the way.
Just like with Jordans biblical lectures I could listen to this 10 times and learn new things. Thank you Mr Peterson for everything you do.
There was a fundamental misunderstanding between the reasoning and propositions between Sir Penrose and Jordan. This significantly impaired the initial discussion and the perception of the meaning of such propositions. It is necessary to fully grasp what "computational" might even mean in the simplest mathematical terms before even considering algorithmic thinking and to extend such a primordial form into questions of predicting the future and statistical phenomenon of math and physics is impossible. These two great men have shown why in some sense, social sciences and natural sciences are so disconnected and far from eachother and that it is too naive to draw conclusions about our behavior and cognitive structure from the fundamentals of logic. I had no idea we were this far behind and ofcourse I did not understand the propositions of Sir Penrose either but his borderline annoyance to the way these were taken as parts of a very different set of ideas.
Agreed. This misunderstanding (and Sir Penrose's apparent annoyance) made me a bit uncomfortable. I can't really say it's necessarily a bad thing though as I think the majority of this video's audience have a mindset and knowledge base closer to Dr. Peterson's. It certainly has made me aware how fuzzy my understanding of the term "computational" is.
I've got a bit of background in calculus and psychology, but it's not helping me here. Granted it was only a few years of each in university, but I think the problem might be that they seem to be having two different conversations or something. I've got no idea what they're talking about as of 21:44, and I've read Godel Escher Bach which I would think would be exactly what this is about.
And his description of Godel's theorem was super confusing to me. I'd phrase it more: "Any sufficiently complex set is incomplete". and "There are truths which cannot be expressed." i.e. "I am asleep".
Agreed
Agreed
This interview shows why Dr Peterson comes across as so real to so many people, and also why he is so successful in his field and his new found internet fame.
The ability to be truly curious and ask questions is a dying trait
The path to wisdom is paved with wonder.
It also shows how he often connects things that dont go together and creates nonenses out of them.
I don't know about that. He is truly out of his depth here, it's kind off frustrating to watch. Instead of getting to the bottom of Penrose's ideas he is trying to impose his own philosophical ideas onto the conversation continuously and by doing this he's just talking past the very interesting points Penrose is making. This conversation shows that Jordan is not really that smart or knowledgeable beyond the field of psychology, sociology and politics. Imposing his philosophy on those subjects onto physics and mathematics is just awkward and painful.
@@raukoring That indeed became extremely clear in this conversation, damn
@@aeiouaeiou100 I noticed, too. A variety of Peterson's ideas have appealed to me over time, but I'm only 30 minutes in and he's imposed several times already. Slightly aggravating.
"thank you for uploading these videos. Even if I'm having a hard night, I just put a relaxing astronomy video on and listen. It always makes my nights go much easier.
Thank you!!!"
At about the 20 min mark, an old Calvin and Hobbs comic popped into my thoughts. Calvin is in class and raises his hand. When the teacher calls on him he declares/ask "My brain is full, can I go home?" Amazing how precise and clear Sir Primrose is.
Professor Penrose just WOW! One of my intelligence heroes and he is the first to admit "we just don't know!" I really like how he probes consciousness and knows it isn't what humans think it is and like quantum is so much more complex and strange.
🎯
Intelligence heroes? That's a new one, lol.
@@shawmafkhubba8406 yeah man I swear these are all bots talking about how "breathtakingly stunningly brilliant" this is and how we are "so lucky to be able to listen to these geniuses".
RUclips is full of professors giving lectures and having discussions. This isn't rare or new or even very high quality
@@MarvinMonroe Agreed. If anything, what stood out about this interview was its poor quality. The interviewers are clearly lacking in both knowledge and competence in the subject matter that they'd intended to ask good, serious, intelligent questions about.
@@MarvinMonroe I agree when people say that about Peterson, but Penrose is one of the most distinguished individuals in his field of mathematics. He’s definitely somebody very special.
Such a great man, Sir Roger gave a talk at my university and I was lucky enough to get a signature from him
Did a Pen rose out of nothing for him to do the autograph? (not i'm not ashamed and never will be) :D
You can't have this conversation without an economist at the table Mr. Peterson! Humans are intermediaries in the deterministic and teleological world. And human action is a major driver of change. Psychology is a science that deals with the ends we choose but the corridor betwen that subjective realm and the objective realm is not consciousness, it is action. Human action in the real world. Economics is a branch of praxeology, an a priori discipline, whose laws are derived deductively from an ultimate axiom. Praxeology is the application of formal logic to the concept of human action in economic terms (not psychological) in that it deals with objective realities like scarcity, time, and the means. I would highly recommend Ludwig von Mises's Human Action to you not just because I liked it, but because I think you would like it. You are a thinking man. And Ludwig von Mises is one of the few literary economists who can show you how to think about economics. Bless you for all you do.
Need to send this to people so they might have some insight to the thoughts/arguments with myself that run through my head late at night.
He's 91 years old and speaks more lucidly than any thirty-year-old I've met.
It's what occurs when a person consistently uses their brain their whole life rather than wasting it away.
He's far beyond the average zoomer/millennial. Equality doesn't exist.
@@greyinsight This isn't normal. He was born with an exceptionally robust and wired brain, causing him to have an extremely high-IQ, defending him against cognitive-decline beyond the threshold for lost-lucidity. What you are mentioning is not on it's own enough to make a man born with an IQ of 90 to speak this way at 91 years old.
@@chasecole4841 Im aware. I simply encourage the consistent use of your brains cognitive function in all aspects rather then having it deteriorate away from lack of utilization.
I think Joe Biden is more lucid 😊
I had a theoretical physicist former string theorist as my circuits professor in college and he told me that biological systems are very poorly understood by modern physics because cells often behave in opposition to how we might expect them to via entropic laws. Lots of non-optimal yet non-random action. Neat stuff.
Very interesting. What was the context of the conversation? What was he talking about when he said that?
Yeah, take @naL for example
the book “What is life?” by Erwin Schrödinger goes into this. Its a good short read.
WHAT?!
Negentropy bb.
The immense respect these interlocutors have for the process of discovery is revelatory. This is how great minds pursue a shared understanding of reality. The thinking world should pay attention.
What a joy to watch the dynamic interplay of the precise, contractive mathematical physicist and the exuberant, expansive mytho-poetic philosopher!
look at me I am smart!
@@amiri1986 yeah....we definitely got ourselves a college graduate there! if i ever use the words dynamic interplay, contractive, exuberant, expansive and myth-poetic in one sentence please punch me in the face!
@@amiri1986No need to be so cynical and snarky. It’s unbecoming.
Sir Roger will probably be with us for another decade, he seems incredibly lucid and physically well, my grandfather is 96 and still going strong, and he looked very much like Sir Roger does here when he was 90.
personally i'm impatient for david sinclairs "ten years younger" pill, i'd gladly share with sir roger tho'
People with sharp minds tend to live longer because they are able to take care of themselves longer, and high intelligence helps with spotting diseases very early, making early treatment possible, which increases survivability of potentially deadly or disabling diseases.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 he's just at a higher level of consciousness given his knowledge on it. has probably trained his mind a lot, so yeah he'll be very intuitive to what his body needs as you say
This is one of the best interviews i've seen with Sir Roger (and i've seen many, one of which in person), becuase Dr Peterson is not afraid to ask questions and to request more detailed explainations. He is not afraid to say he didn't understand. Many other interviewers just do not not dare, because they don't want to look stupid, as if failing to understand Sir Roger's 5 dimensional chess arguments on the first take would in any way make you stupid.
Bravo to Dr Peterson here.
Rare when you see Jordan that engaged in an interview. You could see he was fascinated. Mostly out of his element but saw ways in which it applied to the things he does and cares about.
Such a great podcast! Thanks for sharing!
Watching Jordan’s youthful interest and nervousness is so touching. He seems so genuinely curious, he’s not afraid to reveal his ignorance on certain topics in search for the truth.
Out of his depth more like.
@@ally11488 maybe, and maybe/certainly I’m out of my depth, but from what I heard, Sir Roger did not quite understand what Jordan was asking…he’s stuck in his 20-30 year old lane of knowing things nobody else knows. Then again, maybe Jordan (and I) just didn’t quite understand what Roger was trying to say…maybe Roger isn’t best at explaining what he’s thinking. Who knows
@@CanWeGetDeep I listened to an interview with Norman Finkelstein recently. He recounted a tale about asking his friend Noam Chomsky what he thought of Einstein's theory of special relativity. Chomsky answered.... "There's perhaps only two or three people on the planet who truly understand it. I'd rather not opine on something I don't understand".
Point I'd like to make here is that's humility. I always feel Peterson misrepresents science he has no direct knowledge of, and I've always felt he doesn't truly understand some of the fields he purports to be widely read and knowledgeable on. To use a humourous example from the film, 'A Fish Called Wanda".....
Wanda: "You think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape!!!??"
Otto: "Apes don't read philosophy."
Wanda: "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it."
@@ally11488 I mean he said that himself in the video.
@@Kyrieru Yet I've read comments on here from typical lobsters mentioning "Two geniuses"
It's rather insulting to Penrose.
A fascinating conversation which seems to me to reveal more about the participants' thought process than the subject itself. Peterson continually pushes to abstract more concepts out of another, and Penrose continuously snaps him back to what is known and not known.
@Konstantin Dahlin this is true, in a way it shows a level of immaturity from Peterson, I don't mean that in a negative way, more of like a childlike curiosity. At the end of the day this is the fundamental difference between science and philosophy.
I’ve been here for 17 minutes now and I still haven’t understood anything other than they’re all very pleased to meet each other…
Can you three get together again and do another ? You opened my mind up even more than I realized about many different things related to this universe....it's like sitting in class listening to a great mind ....loved this
Truly grateful to Dr. Penrose and Dr. Peterson and Dr. Blackwood for making the conversation happen, and to all the people for their work in making it publicly accessible.
Jordan - “What are the geometric forms conceptually?”
Roger - “I just like doing puzzles man.”
Perfect👌
I think it's beyond (tiling) puzzles. But it hilariously comes off as if Peterson is trying to figure out what is wrong with Penroses mind from a psychiatric point of view. (I mean, who knows, lol) But he's probably mostly trying his best to follow the logical reasoning.
I think some tiling problems are a visual way to illustrate examples of uncomputability and even to some extent, what the hell understanding and consciousness is. I think Penrose is more drawn to those abstract ideas and it so happens that certain puzzles shed light on other concepts which he is (also) drawn to.
I'd say one interest might fuel the other and vice versa.
Yes Dr. Jordan Peterson. Thank you for this important episode. Brilliant
Roger Penrose's sometimes partner, Stuart Hameroff, in consciousness studies (an emeritus Professor of both Anesthesiology and Psychology) is equally interesting. You've seen him speak, and you should also interview him!
I used to think all of Physics could be explained to people in words and pictures, but when I got half way through my undergrad degree I realised that there are some things that can only be understood using mathematics. This takes me back to those days . "It sounds crazy but it's correct" is a good summary of the whole of relativity and quantum mechanics 🙂
Right. Like how love is more closely related to red rather than black. I mean nobody gets a black box of chocolates on valentines day😆
A better summary for Theoretical Physics would be "a whole field dedicated to trying to force unfounded materialistic beliefs to fit with empirical reality through mathematical gibberish with such a volume of low grade nonsense and self referential stupidity that makes it impossible for anyone to agree, disagree or in fact, pinpoint any single of the multiple incongruences in which it incurs."
@@manicbichon5847 🍎
@@manicbichon5847 and yet, it seems to be good enough to create the device you typed that out on, which if you stop to reflect for a second is an incredibly radical power requiring an understanding of subatomic interactions so precise, it's literally impossible for the human mind to comprehend. All your comment tells us is that you have a good vocabulary but have no idea what physics is all about. I mean, you talk about all the 'incongruences' physics incurs (and we're actually lucky it does, since most of the reality that we percieve seems to result from symmetry-breaking), but you've already defended yourself from pushback by saying it's impossible to pinpoint what those incongruences are.
And 'mathematical gibberish' just tells me you haven't studied the math at all. It's actually surprisingly elegant, which is part of why it's so encouraging that it seems to describe physical reality with staggering accuracy. I'm not trying to be a mathematical elitist here, not everyone wants or needs to get a deep mathematical education, and that's fine. There are plenty of vocations that are equally meaningful and fulfilling. But just passing it off as nonsense with a bunch of fancy words and no concrete examples or evidence seems unhelpful at best.
@@TheElectricChickens u actually believe computers were designed taking into account theoretical physics? 🤭🤣
We live in a wonderful time when I and everyone else on earth can watch this beautiful discussion
Good to hear Peterson asking questions.
Perhaps Sir Penrose could map out the theoretical physics of Dr. Peterson’s conceptual verbosity. They both are coming from different perspectives of genius minds. The complexity of the discussion lies in that one is succinct in description, the other complex in description. Great interview!
Wow, Roger Penrose at 90 sounds so incredibly sharp. Also well done JBP for preparing for this so thoroughly. Amazing conversation.
Roger Penrose is a living legend, and it's an amazing privilege to listen to him, so thank you for this conversation.
20:29 "The creative people use lower probability concepts and words in their approach." This is because in lower probability concepts and words convey more information in Information Theory, since information is defined as negative entropy. This means that there is less randomness, since entropy is basically randomness.
20:01 "Creative consciousness doesn't seem to be a random walk." Well, obviously because the less probable the idea, the less random it is, according to Information Theory. So, he understands "creativity", but he has to learn the basics of Information Theory/Cybernetics (and he should know cybernetics since it's being used extensively in psychology, and he also mentions it on one of his lectures).
@@psychcowboy1 Boulder... that says it in a single word.
@@psychcowboy1 that’s what creative people do. That exact point was touched on in the context of the conversation. Much of it is nonsense, but that’s any good conversation. Also I think there were times when Jordan was making a point that would be worth discussing but they missed each other. Partly because Jordan easily moved between levels of abstraction and also partly because Roger is less interested in meta questions about how advanced our understanding of the physical world may advance those conversations.
@@psychcowboy1 Im on my second run of this video and trying to find it, he talks absolute nonsense tangents imo. But so many people here think he's saying something amazing, can someone help me understand?
Just...no? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; you're confusing entropy and differential entropy while acting like graduate level physics is child's play while making more sketchy inferences then Penrose would dare.
@@tommorgan7599 sense of what dr Peterson says is not "in the sense of providing information" but rather "in creating environment for prof Penrose to provide some information". Thus, the most relevant information provided by dr Peterson in this video - to me - is the verbal and nonverbal example of how to speak with other person in such a way you could understand what they're saying. It's some "meta" because it is information about how to obtain information. Foolish questions and listening to the aswer explaining why you are a fool is quite a good way to do this.
Penrose is a gentleman as far as I can tell. It's great that there are top scientists like him
What I like a lot about Penrose is his originality and openness to playing with ideas
oh this is the craziest crossover ever. Dr. Peterson, you should also have Dr. Peter Fenwick on the podcast - he's the prominent neuropsychiatrist/physiologist who's a pioneer in near death expriences.
Great call👍
Good idea!!
This was epic! A bit of a rocky start as thinking styles converged. This is to be expected when you put a physicist and a psychologist/philosopher together. But things really pick up at around the 45:00 point and start roaring from there. So glad you were able to do this conversation in person. Not sure the fruits of this engagement would have been possible without it.
@@L.I.T.H.I.U.M I thought Dr. Peterson had a psychiatric practice of his own prior to his illness. That wasn't the case?
@@meinking22 he was trained as a clinical psychologist. Psychiatrists are medical, Peterson from what he has said specialized in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Never prescribed medication.
@@isaaccheetham5081 Okay. Thanks for the correction.
@@isaaccheetham5081 He has prescribed antidepressants.
He is not a philosopher.
Consciousness is that step of awareness beyond tracing the paths of perception. An example of consciousness could be 'blind sight'. Recently I visited a friend in hospital who was suffering from a brain abscess. The abscess had caused (temporary) blindness. As I walked with him down a hospital corridor he moved aside to make room for someone approaching from the opposite direction. He told me that he could not see or hear the approaching person but somehow he knew exactly where the person was and also knew where to move to avoid bumping in to him. This seems to be consciousness without any accompanying perceptual image. Consciousness is probably a neurological feature which remains undiscovered to science.
Actually consciousness is fundamental our brains are like receiver or radios.
I love that Jordan is trying so hard to ask tremendous and profound questions, and at the same time, the place he’s coming from is so fundamentally different than Penrose that sometimes the questions don't seem to compute. Then, around the 1hr mark, Jordan humbly admits to being out of his depth with regards to these topics while, at the same time, he's asking questions that are incredibly insightful in an abstract sense. It's always a toss-up as to whether people who think in two profoundly different manners will get along with each other. I think by the 1hr mark, Penrose is beginning to get that Jordan isn't trying to be obtuse or sneaky but that the gulf between the two kinds of thinking is what makes Jordan hard to understand from a concrete thinker’s standpoint.
Dr. Peterson, there is another physicist (turned philosopher) who wrote a lot about the nature of the mind and of consciousness, basing himself in his understanding of physics. His name was David Bohm. He is now deceased, but he wrote a book called "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" in which he discusses several things which might be relevant to this conversation, and which I found very enlightening. I recommend it to you. And while you're at it, you might as well also look into his interpretation of quantum mechanics, called Bohmian mechanics, since you showed interest in quantum theory. His interpretation gets rid of the inconsistency/incompleteness from which the standard interpretation suffers in an elegant and easy to understand way, and in a way which takes all of the apparent "magic" out of the theory.
I was fascinated to see that Roger Penrose uses Godel incompleteness to support his views on the nature of consciousness, since I came to the same conclusions on my own years ago based on the same mathematics. So cool to hear my ideas coming from the mouth of such a brilliant man!
Doesn’t pilot wave theory introduce all that same regular QM magic for things like light-speed particles and such? I was pretty sure it’s pretty well debunked by the entire scientific community for fairly good reason
@@chistopherr7536 It was de Broglie, not Bohm, who developed pilot wave theory. They are similar, and some people even use "pilot wave theory" to refer to Bohm's theory, but Bohm's theory is actually called Bohmian Mechanics. It is true that problems were found in de Broglie's theory, but there are no problems with Bohmian mechanics. It is also true that it is one of the less commonly accepted theories, but not because it poses any problems. Rather, it is a matter of preference, and the fact that most prefer to simply stick with what they were taught in university.
@@chistopherr7536 And to answer your first question, while it is still non-local, it gets rid of problems with the wave-function collapse and gives a coherent way to view wave-particle duality.
Penrose being a polymath and an original thinker doesn't make his books easy to understand. But bohm's book is extremely dense especially its language. tried and failed at it
Sorry, but physicists don't "turn" into philosophers. After cognizing much on the nature of 'knowledge' itself (i.e. 'knowledge of nature' - science), they eventually accrue enough wisdom to begin thinking philosophically. Unless, of course, they are like the 'moron in the wheelchair': "Philosophy is dead, science has all the answers." - to which he turns around and re-couches originally philosophical notions as science! NO SCIENTIST, of any WORTH, would EVER say such ignorant things. If science is the father, then philosophy is like grandpa. Lionizing daddy, while demonizing grandpa just doesn't make any sense. Not long ago. science was not called "science", it was called 'natural philosophy'. In fact, what often separates the scientific heavyweights from some of their less open-minded colleagues, is that little bit of philosophical wonderment and lack of stricture that allows them to "see" that which was not originally perceived as such.
Peterson has an enormous intellectual curiosity and a desire to extrapolate from one discipline to another, to synthesize different strands of thinking and so enrich his 'map of meaning', a cartography of the world. This makes him fascinating to listen to and explains a lot of his draw as a populariser of academe, and a scientific communicator par excellence. The trouble is, maths and physics are such deep, esoteric disciplines that - even for the very intelligent outsider - Peterson's worthy attempts to draw out the parallels he loves seem to strike Penrose as superficial or off-point. What happens when the ultimate specialist meets the ultimate generalist
Maybe because Peterson is often just blabbering with big words like you have in this comment 😅😅😅 whereas Penrose tries to express complicated ideas with the simplest language possible. They're two opposites
Exactly ! Brilliant :-)
@@jaroslavprucha9198 Just one opposite :-)
@@psychcowboy1 He is the king of circumlocution . He says less in a paragraph than Penrose says in a few words. But, what I decoded was deep, insightful and yet constantly changing subject which I think irritated Roger somewhat.
Great observation. Ha ma
6:32 Understanding is the stuff of this new age to come. 4th Density transition, based in love and understanding, compassion and self acceptance.
So great he said that.