This is interesting. Where can i read mpre about your view?

If you’re so clever how about trying to solve the mystery of consciousness and the origin of the universe /poss’ cyclic universe . He has theories which aren’t pie in the sky for both.

Is that the nature of consciousness? The peak of human consciousness: of cumming inside my girl…..? Why would I be referring to any result due to Penrose?

@@Sam-ri3hr oh, thank you! Obviosuly, Twistor has a meaning…. I’m commenting on a fine analytical tick I have with its use at all: given the use of spinnors that model quantum mechanical spin: What is spin? Not a rotation…. It’s meant to be an intrinsic measure: your headache is a quantum mechanical event , in the sense of having been accelerated by the canonical particles….. Nigel Hitchin’s recent paper on the spinnor-valued Higgs field is a good example of my attitude. He uses deep topology in a way that reflects my attitudes.

But you could spend hours analyzing a position. There are billions of possibilities.

@@rahulramkissoon Billions of Possibilities (which isn't true btw) in a short time?🤨

@@Henry_Wilder simply Google how many possible chess moves there are. It's more than the number of atoms in the universe. Ruling out illegal moves, it's something like 10^40 possible moves.

@@rahulramkissoon Alright, let's say the validity of your statement about the vast number of possible moves in chess is true. I think you're missing the point. I'm talking about the dynamics of a timed versus untimed match. In a timed setting, the pressure to decide on the optimal move within a constrained timeframe intensifies. This doesn't necessarily imply inferiority; rather, it highlights the challenge of making critical decisions under time constraints. My point is that in a timed game, where seconds count, the margin for deep analysis of each move is significantly reduced compared to its untimed counterpart. This reduction in available time can increase the risk of suboptimal choices, not due to a lack of skill, but simply because there isn't enough time to thoroughly evaluate all potential moves. Do you get?

@@Henry_Wilder So if we played a game without a timer. At what point do you think would be too long for a person to play a move? 1 hour? 24 hours? 1 year? You could analyze a position for months. I agree that time constraints aren't for everyone. But we have to atleast agree on the time limit per move, else you could be waiting years

Thank you! Someone finally says it. There is no intelligence behind AI. It's not even artifical stupidity. All AI is a more powerful form of computation.

A few people have asked so we're definitely considering it.

Full video now online! kzbin.info/www/bejne/rp_KgYqMls52kJo

@Lewdog audio is working on our end. The audio does seem to have been mixed to pan more to one side than the other so if you're using mono sound settings or you only have 1 working headphone side, there could be problems there.

Ah yes it was that. Appreciate the reply@@WadhamCollegeOxford

You can still stalemate and get a draw or agree to a draw regardless of time.

😂

Greetings. I might be wrong but from my understanding/perspective I don't think you understood Penrose's inference.

@crabb9966 Oh right. What specifically do you think I’ve misunderstood?

​@@hihello-sx1sx"what it really said" "whatever rules we have" "able to transcend" your argument is rigid and doesn't explain what he is getting at, well this is from my perspective. In my opinion most proponents of computer brains should take a step back to a neutral position as it is merely an extrapolation with no sound basis, the way I see it. Materialistic world view doesn't even work philosophically.

@@hihello-sx1sx he said you could transcend this systems whatever the rules might be, don't take the theorem at face value. Think about the alternatvie implication.

Penrose probably confused Gödel’s theorem with the Church's theorem. Or maybe these two are related in a way that I don't comprehend.