Shadows of the Mind

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. ....

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.

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! (...)

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.