Asking a Theoretical Physicist About the Physics of Consciousness | Roger Penrose | EP 244

[@davidschultz6555]

Despite being a brilliant mathematician, Nobel laureate physicist, worldly acclaimed academic, I love how willing Sir Roger is to say "I don't know"

[@matsauvagea]

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 ?

[@ClemAparia]

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.

[@johnmachter40]

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"

[@jakem5782]

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”

[@johnmachter40]

@@jakem5782 thats good

[@n0rbakn0rbak38]

Never thought I would understand Dr. Penrose's answer more than Dr. Peterson's questions.

[@Mcgernica]

"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

[@thestonethatgodcant]

@@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

[@Oxydron]

What Penrose understands and talks are the most difficult concepts a human being can grasp and describe. And Perterson is not a physicist.

[@thestonethatgodcant]

@@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.

[@thestonethatgodcant]

@@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

[@makebritaingreatagain2613]

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.

[@docmacdvet]

I rhink Dr. Peterson is postulating whether ir not there are other algorithms possible to arrive at consciousness if it is mathematically driven.

[@coolbreeze6198]

How true

[@chrisgriffiths2533]

@@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.

[@SupernaturalBeingsofEarth]

Huuuuah ?

[@SupernaturalBeingsofEarth]

Kidding. 👍

[@KssandraMontgomery]

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!

[@BrewBlaster]

This intrigues me and makes me think a lot about AI possible characteristics.

[@KssandraMontgomery]

@@antoniosantiago22 it's all in perception

[@AppleOfThineEye]

@@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.

[@debrachilcott7179]

I had the same thought.

[@squamish4244]

@@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.

[@jrhwood_]

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.

[@danielgrzybowski75]

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.

[@anthonyhardisky1471]

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.

[@heywayhighway]

This is a really nice way of saying Jordan is completely lost and grabbing for straws.

[@anthonyhardisky1471]

@@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?

[@anthonyhardisky1471]

@@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?

[@pedroskipie]

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.

[@JordiLinares]

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.

[@ricksmith5944]

@@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.

[@Limpass610]

@@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

[@PauldeGrootMobytron]

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

[@MarkVrankovich]

@@JordiLinares You expect Peterson to know and understand everything? Even things outside his field?

[@lushbIood]

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.

[@sirfer6969]

​@@Theactivepsychos I know right? At least Peterson recognises it and adjusts somewhat, its a real intelligent discourse.

[@steadfasttherenowned2460]

That and if not intimidation, reverence.

[@AxP3]

@@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.

[@AxP3]

@@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.

[@AxP3]

@@Theactivepsychos and what does that have to do with this lecture? Now you're the one just looking to back his pre-built conclusions.

[@baba-sm1fm]

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.

[@mouthfulofmac]

The questions weren’t annoying, they were challenging, that may be why u didn’t like it

[@BlueCoore]

Annoying to a brilliant mind? Don’t think so bro honestly

[@psychonautical6587]

@@mouthfulofmacno, they didn’t like it because the first half was full of confusion and misunderstanding, along with partial rudeness

[@patrickgomes15]

Thanks for this. I was about to switch "off" having watched 20 minutes of JP trying too hard to wrangle randomness into non-computability.

[@wearestardst]

I agree about the first part. Thanks for this. Overall it's stellar, and I'll be registering many times.

[@chasethornton1362]

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.

[@RR-et6zp]

so , an adult

[@johanortiz4189]

@@RR-et6zp a quite rare thing this days

[@karniskavva]

He does well in this room!

[@Camcolito]

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.

[@karniskavva]

@@Camcolito Roger penrose has been working on consciousness for over a decade, WTF are you on about?

[@ThaiChinaMalay]

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.

[@mikejames6664]

Don't overdo it.

[@emilioyared]

True

[@ProfessorToadstool]

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

[@Donny54]

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.

[@LeavingBabylon_]

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. Acts 16:31

[@thucydides7849]

This guy is 91 years old. To maintain this level of mental wherewithal and wit in his advanced age is any thinking persons dream.

[@northernhemisphere4906]

wherewithal is a cool word😊

[@hjr2000]

Amen to that.

[@billlets5460]

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.

[@avigindratt7608]

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

[@F8LDragon2]

@@avigindratt7608 that’s such an arrogantly ignorant thing to say

[@isilver78]

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.

[@susanarupolo2212]

My admiration and love to Roger Penrose after this conversation have increased , he has so an incredible and humble mind. My blessings to him.

[@OmarDavidPerez]

It's super difficult to find a cocky briton, I can attest to that.

[@charlesaydin2966]

And patience… 😃

[@maxineot5652]

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!

[@carolirene49]

I'm with you on that! 😀

[@brandonlarge649]

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

[@bibiana1953]

I felt exactly the same!!

[@v0VeNoM0v]

Pure curiosity and wonder I think

[@maxxxy910]

They're both amazing story tellers, extremely expressive and the best at what they do. They resonate passion.

[@stevewithington7640]

Penrose is brilliant. He is wonderfully straight forward, intelligent and unpretentious.

[@boouyayme]

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

[@rishabhaniket1952]

All people with true intellect are unpretentious.

[@JeanneCiampa]

You forgot he doesn't look at Jordan once! He's spectrum! Those people might be intellectual but they lack in basic human relations!

[@JeanneCiampa]

Hello....it's called the fucking soul How can brilliant people be so dumb and clueless!

[@rishabhaniket1952]

@@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.

[@CarlosManAl]

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"

[@kasuo7039]

No matter the line of inquiry, you will understand that "I don't know" "likely" is the destination of reason, while simultaneously being an irrational statement by all measures. People who actually understand the limits of reason are a minority. The concept is easy to understand logically, hard to demonstrate and impossible to prove. Unfortunately, the culture that emerged out of Platonism is deeply ingrained in the mind of our people, it declares poorly defined and meaningless statements to be axioms. From these flawed axioms, simple logic becomes overcomplicated/absurd.

[@thenephilim9819]

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.

[@viktordoe1636]

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...

[@ryancoxy91]

@@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🤷‍♂️

[@ismaeleo]

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

[@viktordoe1636]

@@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.

[@thedolphin5428]

Different universes, differences brain hemispheres. Embarrassing to watch.

[@AaronMartinProfessional]

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.

[@Laysea89]

Lol right? These guys certainly deserve some comfy chairs and a fireplace or something🔥🤣❤️

[@melaniaborzan8889]

You were bored studying philosophy?! I thought one will get exasperated rather than bored…

[@jademoon8095]

ii am no interlect but at least they simplify it enough for us to get a grasp

[@tysonclarke012]

Will Peterson, please, tackle Spiral? Seriously.

[@sarahalderman3126]

@@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).

[@ashabulkahfi1552]

He is 90 years old and he is talking about advanced physics. That is another level of badass!

[@kkath_greenmachine]

It'd be even more impressive if he was three years old👀

[@ianrand9737]

@@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 :)

[@gw7624]

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.

[@martyfoster7053]

@@kkath_greenmachine Well.... he WAS 3 years old.... 88 years ago!

[@cyberspeeds]

Why surprise? Our President is also 80 years old too. Still ruling the world.

[@GeorgeDoumani8]

Brilliant interview. I particularly appreciated how much effort Dr. Peterson put into researching and acquainting himself with theories in physics to make such a discussion possible. Likewise, I admired Sir Penrose’s openness in answering the questions. I’m glad that he explored with Dr. Peterson the subject of Platonism throughout the interview, most notably at the end: the Platonic world ⊂ the world of beauty ⊂ the world of morality. Since there is a multitude of philosophies about mathematics, its nature, its origins, and its purpose, I would also appreciate it if Dr. Peterson had the opportunity to explore counterpart ideas with philosophers of mathematics like Marcus du Sautoy and Stephen Wolfram. Situated at the intersection of psychology, theology, and cosmology, Dr. Peterson, exploring such topics, would bring us-the viewers-a projection of those ideas into the creative, multidimensional space of thought engendered by his mind. In particular, since he has acquainted himself with explanations about morality’s possible origins and purpose from a behaviorist lens (such as studies with rats and play), as well as beauty from a psychological point of view, he could have a lot to say about similar explanations regarding mathematics: how commonplace simple counting is in the animal kingdom, how even microorganisms distinguish between “quantities” (e.g., less light, more nutrients), and how mathematical skills could be inherent to consciousness, given that the first thing we perceive about “an” object we are conscious of is its multiplicity.

[@thomaslangley1571]

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.

[@dartskihutch4033]

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.

[@TailoredReaction]

Peterson's demeanor does not reflect on anything other than Peterson is a complete ninny.

[@dartskihutch4033]

@@TailoredReaction lol okay.. I don't agree with everything he says, but he certainly isn't a fool.

[@TailoredReaction]

@@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.

[@pierrelabounty9917]

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.

[@nerdgonewild]

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

[@HillcrestGames]

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.

[@kdemetter]

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.

[@suetownsend1656]

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.

[@neochris2]

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.

[@djz2308]

Which ones land?

[@Kroitk]

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.

[@Kroitk]

@@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.

[@dakotadad8835]

@@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

[@victorsanabria5479]

@@psychcowboy1 not as thoughtful and deep as your name Molecule boulder.

[@leoleo2336]

and here you are again to troll people... get a life...

[@sammencia7945]

Happened all the time in the 60s 70s and 80s on Public and Access channells. Weekend tv.

[@afarro]

One of the most profound scientific and philosophical insights is Gödel's incompleteness theorem. It asserts that within any given mathematical system or computational framework, there are statements that, while true, cannot be proven within the rules of that system. In essence, there are truths that lie beyond the reach of computation. This idea is central to Roger Penrose’s argument that consciousness itself may be a phenomenon beyond computation. A common example used to illustrate such a statement is a self-referential one, like the following: **Statement A:** "Statement A is unprovable." If Statement A were false, it would mean that it is provable, which leads to a contradiction as we cannot prove a false statement under a consistent framework. Therefore, Statement A must be true, but, as it claims, it cannot be proven. Thus, it is an example of a true statement that cannot be proven within a given computational framework.

[@YeahMcMad]

Aren't we all so fortunate to be able to listen in and watch a conversation like this?

[@micwun7844]

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?

[@BobMartin76]

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.

[@buhuhuh7757]

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.

[@jamesli5823]

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.

[@hama3157]

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

[@Hello.Bye.123]

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

[@tortysoft]

Exactly ! Brilliant :-)

[@tortysoft]

@@Hello.Bye.123 Just one opposite :-)

[@tortysoft]

@@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.

[@DavidvanderWant]

Great observation. Ha ma

[@ivanenev323]

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!

[@scorch4299]

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.

[@MrKarpovy]

What an optimistic comment!

[@tinkeringtim7999]

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.

[@chopperhead2012]

a gold mind, if you will

[@Ging_10]

Dont focus on the person…focus on his ideas cause they do sure can live for ever…

[@tinkeringtim7999]

@@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.

[@Boogaloo_Baloo]

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.

[@mikejames6664]

You've watched it TWICE?!

[@nathanielhotz2329]

Spot on!

[@Firstthunder]

Thankful for technology.

[@Sacarat]

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.

[@RafNorth]

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.

[@shaunmcinnis566]

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.

[@thomasgarman6353]

@@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

[@shaunmcinnis566]

@@thomasgarman6353 Good point.

[@n8sfolly]

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.

[@MattHabermehl]

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.

[@abhinavkumar8396]

Understanding is something which requires consciousness... This is such a great relief in whole podcast. Thanks Roger. 😊

[@steveflorida5849]

However, what is the source of human Consciousness?

[@abhinavkumar8396]

@@steveflorida5849 I think there is no source and "It ' is the source.. the intelligent mind or what we call matrix.

[@steveflorida5849]

@@abhinavkumar8396 so you claim there is no source, and then say "it" is the source of human Consciousness. What is IT?

[@abhinavkumar8396]

@@steveflorida5849 well according to Bible I think "It" is God ... Or the Creator. He created human consciousness even.

[@benmccarthy2796]

At the point you don't know you should say you don't know

[@Censeo]

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

[@alejandrocurado5134]

I agree. If humans prevail, future scientists will explore these initial ideas by Penrose and find a new science

[@darricshhh]

Or he will have been shown to be wrong. Thats how science works. Yay science

[@uraniumu242]

His real strength is clarity

[@uraniumu242]

@@darricshhh something we have lost recently in the rush to accept science as absolute.

[@newfinishautospa]

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.

[@dreaminpsyche984]

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!

[@thedolphin5428]

Cut with the hero worship. This was a meeting of two men, two clever humans. But Penrose was like an intellectual automaton.

[@dreaminpsyche984]

​@@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.

[@IsidroAPS]

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.

[@markstipulkoski1389]

@@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.

[@wthomas7955]

@@markstipulkoski1389 Yeah, and how many times did he have to say, "I don't think I understand the question."? Ridiculous conversation.

[@CleverMetaphor]

@@markstipulkoski1389 at what point was theism ever a part of this conversation?

[@shardultheshaneshankar]

@@markstipulkoski1389 Where was theism in this? Is there some other conversation I missed?

[@markstipulkoski1389]

@@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.

[@malayangkaalaman]

I never imagine myself getting interested in this topic even though I flunked out of college. Sir Roger is Amazing

[@TheOnlyONeill]

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.

[@FaxanaduJohn]

Yeah the fact you flunked out of college is precisely why I never imagined you getting interested in this topic.

[@rapistincel]

Yeah@@FaxanaduJohn

[@philopoemen6659]

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).

[@MartyHiggins]

@@psychcowboy1 Boulder... that says it in a single word.

[@carlknepfler8976]

@@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.

[@tommorgan7599]

@@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?

[@k.butler8740]

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.

[@tsunamimae1965]

@@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.

[@ThaLatePizzaBoi]

I am going to sit through this and pretend I understand every word of it.

[@Dennis-McTatten]

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

[@cholasuek]

Me too

[@mariai.sandoval3294]

Same. But I’m intrigued that I’m intrigued. So I’ll stick around and see what happens.

[@pablogonzalez8304]

Hahaha

[@ihateeverythingsucks7003]

@m_train1 🧘🏻‍♀️

[@brianpryor9624]

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.

[@morthii]

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.

[@heidifarstadkvalheim4952]

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.

[@basketvector7311]

@Postmortem Colonoscopy no he doesnt

[@EmperorAsad]

@Postmortem Colonoscopy contempt in what sense? That it’s inadequate? Excessive or something else?

[@vermaakf]

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.

[@no_alias_for_me]

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.

[@ptb4049]

Use it or lose it😎 A lesson for us all.

[@MaqAttaq1]

The brain is a muscle and he’s the Arnold Schwarzenegger of physics

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

definitely sharp for a 90-year old. Queen Elizabeth II was incredibly sharp right up until her death recently.

[@holliswilliams8426]

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.

[@larrymountain1914]

Sorry about you grandad, but it is a question of keeping your mind active and not retiring. Penrose is remarkably humble and honest, he keeps it simple, yet he is fully engaged and very logical.

[@tachikomakusanagi3744]

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.

[@robisonkarls]

Imagine being in a presence of Sir Penrose and Jordan Peterson... Its like watching your heart and brain having a discussion

[@alexlalov7152]

Wonderful way of putting it!

[@wisdomCurator1471]

I couldn't have said it any better 😅

[@hold_my_ribcage]

@@phasespace4700 The scope of your thinking, the scope of ignorance.

[@mnomadvfx]

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.

[@the2ndcoming135]

Basically Comic-Con for uber nerds🤔

[@Trailightband]

Penrose seems to be exercising every bit of physically conscious patience in this interview.

[@OfLastingThunder]

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"

[@dundeedolphin]

​@@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.

[@OfLastingThunder]

@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.

[@mikael9325]

​@@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.

[@HeyHey-ju1xi]

​@@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.

[@andresramos5166]

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.

[@alrick3000]

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.

[@KyriosHeptagrammaton]

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.

[@KyriosHeptagrammaton]

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".

[@qtpies2095]

Agreed

[@Az-bb4mb]

Agreed

[@CanWeGetDeep]

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.

[@CanWeGetDeep]

@@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

[@Kyrieru]

@@ally11488 I mean he said that himself in the video.

[@Kyrieru]

​@@ally11488 Jordan is a clinical psychologist, nobody here is under the illusion that he is a genius in Penrose's field, nor does Jordan act like he is in this video.

[@nf191]

​@@ally11488 At least for me it is, and I'm sure for others who try to inject the most sense into definitions. A genius is a person who reached a point in a field that no one has been to before and surpassingly so. The more intelligent you are, the quicker you can reach that point, I don't see how Jordan doesn't apply to that definition. Also, Jordan's intelligence is in the excess of 150, which is enough to be able to ever reach the 'point' that I've been referring to. Penrose is undoubtedly also, it's just that each has a different kind of intelligence. Penrose seems to be hyper-mathematical, while Jordan seems to be hyper-verbal. It's like if you go left, and I go right, and we both reach that 'point' of genius, but those points are too distinct and far apart, that we may perceive the same concepts differently, and most likely will have a gap in communication, this conversation is a clear representation of that.

[@nf191]

​@@ally11488 He understands how old ethics are applicable, then explains their applicability to our current present day in a clear manner and emphasizes that we don't put them aside that easily. I don't claim that old-world ethics, particularly Judeo-Christian, are all 'correct', but he managed to extract the most applicable ones. His ideas would appeal more to the young generation, so I can see how age plays a role here. I think what he does is important, though I agree not all of his ideas make sense. He contradicts himself at times, it seems to be the case, but it could be that his reasoning simply leaps, which may seem as incoherent to a listener. I've more than once found inconsistencies in what he said, but later on, when he expanded on it, it made sense since he was referring to things differently than what I did. You have to be sure what he 'means' by what he says in order to criticize him, maybe you do, but I suspect that many people don't. Also, even if he has contradictions between his ideas, it doesn't suggest that all are wrong. Many so-called geniuses had dumb ideas.

[@enigma7791]

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.

[@Djurel]

🎯

[@shawmafkhubba8406]

Intelligence heroes? That's a new one, lol.

[@MarvinMonroe]

@@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". KZbin is full of professors giving lectures and having discussions. This isn't rare or new or even very high quality

[@shawmafkhubba8406]

​@@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.

[@kkandola9072]

@@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.

[@c0dii837]

Roger clearly explained his position in the first few moments, and they spent another 20 mins trying to understand it

[@sen7826]

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

[@wilburdemitel8468]

@@sen7826 useful things come from extrapolation

[@BySixa]

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

[@stevenfitzgerald2214]

The path to wisdom is paved with wonder.

[@raukoring]

It also shows how he often connects things that dont go together and creates nonenses out of them.

[@aeiouaeiou100]

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.

[@aeiouaeiou100]

@@raukoring That indeed became extremely clear in this conversation, damn

[@kylepugh6607]

@@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.

[@da-p6814]

Bringing conversations like this to the masses is such a profoundly beautiful thing. Different people may disagree with aspects of your politics (I know I do,) but here it should be unequivocally clear to all that you're a positive force for humanity, and we're lucky to have you. This, your harvard lectures on youtube, your biblical series...you're doing truly fantastic work. Thank you.

[@benjamindyck741]

@Michael Johnson You are correct about the his lecture tours and his action surrounding compelling speech. However, JP has recently engaged in plenty of political discourse especially regarding Canadian politics.

[@noahheninger]

@Michael Johnson You should see him when he sits down with Rex Murphy. I would say those conversations are exclusively political.

[@thewingedavenger1007]

He's 91 years old and speaks more lucidly than any thirty-year-old I've met.

[@colezy1998]

​@@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.

[@greyinsight]

@@colezy1998 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.

[@user-pp1qd8kq3o]

I think Joe Biden is more lucid 😊

[@colezy1998]

@@greyinsight There's absolutely no evidence that attempting to use the brain can fight off cognitive decline. The only scientifically supported method to fight against inevitable age-related cognitive decline is physical exercise, which works by keeping blood supply to the brain high and oxygenated.

[@carefulcarpenter]

Wisdom is never taught. Most people think at the highest level of their credentials allow. Synchronistic Mathematics is far above all three of these scholars. Experience is direct personal observation over a period of time.

[@mervcharles8365]

I sat through the whole interview but I think I only got about 30% of this discussion. It's so fascinating to listen to Roger's explanations. I picked up two of Roger's books after watching his interview with Lex Fridman. Can't wait for it to arrive and get a better understanding of these topics.

[@duckworthlamar7997]

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

[@MattHabermehl]

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.

[@alexbuckley4378]

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

[@jamesdot87]

Me too….I’m lost and I’m following every word so far 😂

[@RJ-sx4qi]

You didn’t expect Penrose to be a genius? Aha

[@cristianproust]

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

[@DragonballG.]

Fascinating to observe two brilliant intellectuals have a completely different approach. Jordan wants to immediately incorporate everything into his broader understanding of the world and draw meaningful connections between things. Professor Penrose simply wants to make an interesting observation as concisely as possible and leave it where it is. Its almost as if Professor Penrose is content with making a statement of truth, whereas Jordan wants to extract every drop of value he can from this truth. Or perhaps professor Penrose just disagrees with the connections Jordan is making.

[@Him.TheOneAndOnly]

🎯

[@qrious786]

I noted this as well. I think Penrose is not disagreeing but he isn't 100 percent sure and therefore declining to comment in favor. Penrose and Peterson are different personalities and have different approach.

[@DragonballG.]

@@qrious786 I think you’re right

[@qrious786]

@@rickmoen3076 I think you are being very biased here. Here's what I honestly perceived from the dialogue. RP has depth in specific areas (mathematics, physics, etc.) but JP has a lot more breadth. RP goes by the book and very precise and won't make a statement otherwise. RP is not comfortable discussing stuff beyond his speciality. And even in those areas, he only strictly talks about established science. JP has much more polymathic intellect and philosophical insight than rest of the panel. JP isn't afraid to explore connections between concepts.

[@ironclownfish2]

@@qrious786 Not to minimize JP’s thoughtfulness, but he was struggling to understand the difference between indeterminacy and incomputability. And I do not agree at all that RP has a narrower field of knowledge.

[@drjcarrick]

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! :)

[@Margo714P]

Congratulations! Jordan would be proud of you. 🙂

[@ianamos5649]

Well done !

[@dozzio]

Well done 👏

[@unscient]

Congrats Man!

[@conq3097]

I'm surprised the university didn't fry you for daring to mention Peterson

[@mohamedelkerdawy88]

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.

[@jeanmichaels8686]

I really wanted to understand something here but nope, not one word. 😮

[@user-pl9yq3fc8u]

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

[@aristotleolympiada4540]

Wow, Roger Penrose at 90 sounds so incredibly sharp. Also well done JBP for preparing for this so thoroughly. Amazing conversation.

[@jeffreyterwilliger3089]

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.

[@bustedrav]

@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.

[@ilopgaara]

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.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

personally i'm impatient for david sinclairs "ten years younger" pill, i'd gladly share with sir roger tho'

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

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.

[@apjbrw]

@@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

[@michaelohair3715]

When Penrose really gets going he's a wizard.and very eloquent.

[@alexandere9928]

We live in a wonderful time when I and everyone else on earth can watch this beautiful discussion

[@singhprabhjinder]

Sir Roger Penrose everyone knows that he is unarguably one of the best minds we have in the field of mathematics and physics, and I have seen his other talks as well but the kind of knowledge you have been successful in taking out of him is phenomenal. Thank you very much for this talk. You have made a lot of people much smarter than they were earlier through this effort. Thank you once again.

[@desertshadow6098]

Having enjoyed decades of Sir Roger Penrose’s wisdom and insights through his many fascinating lectures and books I am still amazed at his focus and integrity.

[@ajngray]

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.

[@AKadir8]

I'm gonna have to watch this multiple times, with my books and notebook open until I understand without pausing and taking notes, literally every minute. Forever grateful for this fountain of knowledge and wisdom you two have created.

[@SandyNiki]

If you look up kaos theory it will help understand this. Kaos theory is the fact that everyone's (for an example) fingerprints are different, but are still recognized as fingerprints.

[@kce4520]

At a minimum, look up the Escher's pictures referred to: - Fishes and Scales - My Little Ghosts (inspired by Penrose) - Circle limit IV (Devils & Angels)

[@mattlawyer3245]

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!

[@chistopherr7536]

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

[@mattlawyer3245]

@@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.

[@mattlawyer3245]

@@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.

[@rajeevgangal542]

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

[@palexander5090]

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.

[@harrisonbennett7122]

Such a great man, Sir Roger gave a talk at my university and I was lucky enough to get a signature from him

[@oOHiggsFieldOo]

Did a Pen rose out of nothing for him to do the autograph? (not i'm not ashamed and never will be) :D

[@Sultan18951948]

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.

[@LateNightVideozz]

I see someone who is very particular and very precise with what he is getting into and someone who scrambles everywhere. Which some could see as curious but ultimately fail to address any questions at last and just possess more and more complex ones. Penrose stands out. I don't know- humble and honest

[@huithu]

Exactly!!!

[@tjeerdteves1039]

hits the nail on the head

[@BRaviShankar]

Right on the money. Exactly my thoughts too.. Should never delve too much into the subject you are just curious about without doing a proper homework as an interviewer

[@painless4785]

Came to to the comments section to see if I was the only one who felt this way. It's like watching religious people try to get an atheist to say something they can latch on to as means to Jesus smuggle. May be a tad too far but definitely in that direction.

[@marvinwilliams7938]

The beginning was confusing because Jordan wanted to know about Godels theory of INCOMPLETENESS not Godels theory, two diff things. Penrose is precise and thought about the latter.

[@meinking22]

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.

[@meinking22]

@@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?

[@isaaccheetham5081]

@@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.

[@meinking22]

@@isaaccheetham5081 Okay. Thanks for the correction.

[@jonis7989]

@@isaaccheetham5081 He has prescribed antidepressants.

[@WarlikeSRK]

He is not a philosopher.

[@j.t.4072]

That was a very interesting conversation to listen to. I don't feel quite as slow when also I hear theoretical physicists say they don't understand a question which I have to listen to a few times before I have a grasp of it. Thank you for sharing, Dr. Peterson. God bless you and your family.

[@Helmann9265]

We can't REALLY understand Einstein without sir Roger Penrose.... 92 years so sharp, unbelievable. amazing. thanks, brilliant one .🙌❤️🌠

[@pialakin6517]

Only wish is to let him speak, and finish his thought. JP interupts all the time

[@vinterwn2946]

What did u understand?

[@ulrichkristensen4087]

Penrose, Suskind, Smolin, Thorne, Weinberg, Guth are the true giants i physics today

[@chuckthecontractor]

Jordan - “What are the geometric forms conceptually?” Roger - “I just like doing puzzles man.”

[@allistairneil8968]

Perfect👌

[@alaididnalid7660]

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.

[@eddie-a8922]

It's amazing and fortunate of us that we could still see and hear Sir Roger talking about Science and Maths these days...He is 10 years senior to Stephen Hawking, and Stephen Hawking used to attend his lectures in the 1960's........

[@anundbabajee9327]

Man, that first 45 m was rocky! But the humbleness and humility of the participants highlighted even more - if such was ever required - their curiosity, willingness to understand and share intellectual, philosophical knowledge at a very high level without any ego. Brilliant!

[@ismaeleo]

They lost me in the first 45 minutes; they were talking past each other. I have to try and listen to the rest of it to see if there’s something there.

[@raydurka]

@@ismaeleo there is so much more! They reach a "quantum equilibrium" (LOL) after a while, then it gets REALLY interesting! Definitely watch the rest!

[@raydurka]

Totally... but that's what happens when two black holes collide! They had to find their resonance... then once they tuned into one another, they were OFF! Total nerdgasm!

[@chrishostetler3576]

Jordan's pivot and careful approach in treating Sir Roger with delicacy, in the goal of reaching truth, is one of his most enduring qualities. What a great interview.

[@heatrayuk2520]

Penrose has the appearance of someone who has been withered by a lifetime of dealing with daunting concepts, but he still retains the courage to face them. That’s the most admirable sort of person, in my view.

[@fupopanda]

I think it's just because he's 90 years old. Dude is just old. He's still incredibly sharp and brilliant.

[@heatrayuk2520]

@boogiedahomey A somewhat less lyrical account, but take y’pick I guess…

[@TRYtoHELPyou]

There is not enough of this stuff available to the masses, thanks for doing what you do!

[@menthols4625]

I love how the discussion is so complex that it's even difficult for them to figure out the right words to use to ask questions. This was fantastic to watch.

[@mitchcarpenter4506]

I thought the same within a few minutes

[@the2ndcoming135]

Ikr? I thought I noticed a little frustration at JP’s enthusiasm during one point😆

[@crabb9966]

Penrose is a gentleman as far as I can tell. It's great that there are top scientists like him

[@yasminthescientist]

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 🙂

[@the2ndcoming135]

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😆

[@manicbichon5847]

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."

[@the2ndcoming135]

@@manicbichon5847 🍎

[@TheElectricChickens]

@@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.

[@manicbichon5847]

@@TheElectricChickens u actually believe computers were designed taking into account theoretical physics? 🤭🤣

[@2ShadesOfGray]

What an age to live in, to overhear the conversations of great men and to take away snippets of knowledge and leaned wisdom

[@charlesberton2581]

I've been a huge MC Escher enthusiast since the 70s. I like what Roger said in describing Escher's work, that is shows the relationship between mathematics and the physical world and the world of conscious perception. That wraps it up in a neat little bow. Love it.

[@Matt-gl5fj]

His lex interview is amazing. They talk much about Escher

[@mariapuentes5713]

I love Jordans profound curiosity for life experiences…consciousness, where the mind is and so on human behaviors

[@pillsareyummy]

Well, he is a psychologist....

[@martyfoster7053]

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!

[@nargiznasibova9700]

Where are you from?

[@user-pl9yq3fc8u]

i disagree with "that is the dumbest statement ever made" what's dumb about that statement@@martyfoster7053

[@johnspikes256]

What Dr. Peterson seems to use is a mix of elaborative thinking and active questioning mixed with verbalizing his thoughts. I also process information this way. This coupled with his sheer excitement about the topic seems to manifest in a way that some people in the comments think is annoying when seen in relation to how Dr. Penrose seems to be expressing his ideas. This is understandable, but both people are extremely intelligent and should be respected for their contributions to their fields. Collaborations like this help us grow as a species.

[@straightline76]

'Dear John' - we, the members of the Homo sapiens sapiens species with an IQ higher than that of a small plastic soap dish, are letting you go from our group. Please re-read through your statement to understand why. Goodbye.

[@Fritzybedeek]

:D

[@ozzyoz1495]

"Elaborative thinking and active questioning mixed with verbalizing his thoughts" Soo... he's having a conversation? Lol wow. Such genius. Jp is just babbling and Penrose is frustrated by this. There is only one genius in that room.

[@johnspikes256]

@@ozzyoz1495 Guess I should've elaborated on what I thought the communication style of Dr. Penrose was here to compare to my description of Dr. Peterson's. Doesn't matter much in all honesty as it'd just be my musings and not any professional opinion (of which I wouldn't be qualified to make anyway). The point of what I was saying is that I communicate a lot like how Dr. Peterson is communicating in this video, and no matter how these two speakers communicate, they are both worthy of more respect than the comments section, including you unfortunately, seem to be giving them.

[@jamesbogart]

lol.😄

[@jintygibson4876]

Penrose is an anomaly. If you haven't already, look into his family. His brother was a prolific chess player and OBE until he died late last year, his other brother is also a physicist and an FRSE, his sister is a geneticist and his father was also a genius (to say the least). Super interesting family.

[@sidneybristow815]

It makes one wonder how they raised the children. Genetics plus environment to produce such deep brilliant thinkers. It is fascinating.

[@karolakkolo123]

@@sidneybristow815 intelligence is probably largely genetic. I'm speaking out of my ass here, and have nothing to back that observation, but it seems like people who are geniuses tend to have genius grandchildren

[@bellezavudd]

@@karolakkolo123 As you can see from the comments here the intelligence and character of the supervising and teaching adults can do a lot to raise or lower the general intelligence of the children.

[@chrisj1612]

@@karolakkolo123 It was proven that it is hereditary to some extent but obviously the environment that you grow up in has a huge influence as well. If an orphan who had rather intellectually mediocre parents gets adopted by a couple of noble prize winners, probably he will become an educated and relatively smart adult. However, if this couple also has a biological child, he will probably be even smarter, as he has both amazing genes and an appropriate environment to thrive in.

[@MarvinMonroe]

Well, within his family he's not an anomaly at all

[@clayskelton9557]

Wow this entire conversation was just purely satisfying. It scratched my itch. Thank you for speaking with a theoretical physicist and introducing me to Penrose.

[@Stopcolonizinglebanon]

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.

[@yazao8282]

1:22:14 damn just when it was getting really interesting. You've got to do a part two some time in the future and pick up where you left off. This theory of the end of the universe is truly fascinating and the conversation was such a joy to experience. Thank you Peterson and Penrose for such an amazing time.

[@max-6035]

I think what was said is what it is, once the relative time stops in a space full of energy, albeit infinitely large is just the same as a singularity. In other words, all the energy in the universe can be seen as packed in a singularity after all the mass is converted into photons through hawking radiation. And at that singular moment that mass gets created from that singularity of energy the density of that energy can decrease, as seen as how our big bang started. Maybe picturing the expansion of the universe in an infinitely large space can be better grasped as infinitely decreasing density over time from a finite space where in both frameworks we define a set amount of energy.

[@rjreddenbaker4351]

Nothing gives one more credibility in my eyes than the ability to say, "I don't know." They are both two intellectual giants, yet both are humble, measured, and precise in choosing their words and expressing their views, not looking for credit, but looking to explore and learn and grow.

[@rjreddenbaker4351]

@@mike_rich LOL - Jordan Peterson w/2 subscribers? Come on? How stupid do you think this audience is? 🤣🤣🤣🤥

[@bokchoiman]

Now THIS is epic.

[@cd7002]

nya

[@artlessons1]

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,

[@notyetactive]

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.

[@mattvsmetaverse]

JP is SO GOOD at getting at the motivation of someone to find out why they think what they think. He's both working out his concepts and getting Penrose to consider different angles. I would love to see Jordan sit down with all of our greatest thinkers and scientists and just pick their brains. It's so rewarding to watch. He's both increasing his understanding, and politely challenging the other person's understanding. This is such a great way for both parties to grow. Jordan is just hardwired to improve himself and others. It's refreshing. I do think Penrose has been "confined" to his interpretations, and the general scientific consensus, for such a long time, that he has come to consider much of what he understands as gospel (pun intended). That's not to say that he doesn't know his field incredibly well, or hasn't provided many salient points. But, he had a wall up here, and it only grew when "faith" was mentioned. He put that guard up when he got the notion something vaguely religious entered the discussion. To address that behavior a bit, I think that a certain amount of faith is necessary in science. We can only understand so much as it is, that so much beyond what we can't predict has to be taken with a bit of faith. Speaking personally, I think that once one believes in the existence of God, or a creator of some kind, much in science makes a LOT more sense, and only bolsters research. I think not understanding this, or at least the potential for it, limits your scope as a scientist. However, I make no judgment of Penrose for this. It's the primary and promoted interpretation of existence in the scientific community that we came about as an accident, regardless of the many unpromoted and prominent Christian scientists of the world, and the logical fallacies said theories contain. I actually really appreciate that he was willing to have the dialogue in the first place. Saying that, I think JP might have plucked a few of those cognitive strings, getting Penrose to consider some angles beyond his normal comfort level, and gradually opened him up to dialogue. That's saying a lot for someone trained to regard mention of "faith" or God as taboo. Great discussion! These talks are masterclasses, for so many reasons. Is Alan Guth next? 😁

[@brettjames9088]

Good physics requires discipline. Have you met a scientist in academia? They're fairly rigid when they discuss science topics, it can all be measured, whether or not the machine yet exists and it's either known or it isn't and it can all be modelled. If it's not, they simply don't know and that's all they'll say. Anything else isn't science. Psychologists are different. Besides the biology side of things, their science is based upon statistics. They can say generally what's true but any given individual is not going to confirm exactly, or even closely, unlike a physicist, where a planets orbit or the heat loss of a laser or the volume of space in a vacuum is known to a very precise level. Their science has more accuracy and precision. It's not diagnostic like psychology. It makes predictions, not therapy. It measures via instruments, not surveys and patient feedback. Can't knock the bloke for thinking the way he does. It's not too rigid, it's appropriately rigid.

[@brettjames9088]

@@psychcowboy1 Yep it's bad. The guy has watched a few physics videos and gotten some idea he has a sense of what physics is. There is no intuitive metaphor for Penrose's ideas. You either do all the math and learn the systems over the length of a science degree to understand it, or not. It's too abstract and too fundamental. He's right when he says he is out of his depth.

[@mattvsmetaverse]

@@brettjames9088 Yea, I know most of the world is ignorant, but I know how scientists and psychologists work. lol Perhaps I should have used the more encompassing term “academics”, which includes all of these. I was simply commenting on the general consensus among academics that God does not exist and the continued push for that, in all of these areas of study. Of course they aren’t identical fields, but they’re certainly not dissimilar. But that’s missing the point. Regardless of how professionals in academics of any kind gather their information, talk of God and faith is discouraged. When you’re biased, the accuracy of your methods don’t matter. I’m speaking on encouraged bias, and the fallibility of literally any information gathering, from any area of study, using it. It was a pretty general statement.

[@brettjames9088]

@@psychcowboy1 there's a link between physics and anything natural. If consciousness exists in the physical world, then there is a link.

[@SP-mf9sh]

I agree completely. I got that from but also a smug, close minded vibe in a way. Like " oh this soft science nut job is asking me all these wacky questioms" he tried to paint Peterson as dumb simply because Peterson was stumping him by asking really good questions in his OWN field. Bit of an ego thing going on here with scientists..if u are out of their community you are considered crazy like all the great scientists who didn't fit the "mold". People have such a problem with Peterson for some reason...maybe it's his quest for truth and to drive deeper into concepts. To break down walls of understanding with new ideas. Nothing wrong with that. He is the only one that can hang with all of these scientists, still respect artists and hold his own opinions. He is a great speaker that values logic and creativity, beauty, religion and rationality. He goes deeper into kaos to understand order. He is a rare breed. "Academia" is afraid of him..they are jelous of his following.

[@alexjohnson5677]

The writings of Gödel and Escher were core (and difficult) foundational elements in my Discrete Mathematics courses. It was very cool to listen to these two giants discuss Gödel and Escher in such a philosophical context. The book “Gödel, Escher, Bach: A Golden Braid” is one of my most valued artifacts from college - highly recommend to anyone interested in philosophical fruits of uncommon mathematical ventures.

[@straightline76]

There was only one giant in that conversation, whichever way it's looked at.

[@norbertbaranya6627]

I deeply respect Peterson (my netdad), but the conversation started really badly, because he didn't understand the Gödel numbering part, which was the starting point for Penrose reasoning.

[@alexjohnson5677]

It’s true that Jordan Peterson came to this conversation with less preparation than he should have given the domain of the conversation, but he asked some important questions that got at the essence of the question of consciousness. Regardless, I highly admire both men despite their tendency to miss the other’s point during this discussion.

[@alexjohnson5677]

I agree - I think Roger Penrose started out a little annoyed with Jordan Peterson. It picked up some steam towards the middle, though

[@straightline76]

I'm genuinely beginning to question what Jordan Peterson does understand, in terms of expert level knowledge. Definitely not depth psychology. I've stopped pointing folk in his direction.

[@lokeshparihar7672]

12:20 conciousness can't be reduced to mechanistic process 19:15 conciousness isn't producing randomness in response to indetermency 21:45 non computation doesn't imply conciousness is free 22:20 example of non-computational thing 41:40 sphere of mind , matter and mathematics

[@jinwei7645]

Thanks!

[@bbk6848]

I love how JPs brain works. He's a free thinker. He tries to explore lengths that people don't dare to establish entanglement with. But look at quantum gravity and classical physics. We are struggled to find some sort of bridge between the two and now we finally have. So I wouldn't dismiss these kind of brain puzzles. Love you JP

[@davidlakhter]

1:06:01 "I think the mistake here is to think of time as an objective thing, which is attached to this model - and it's not. There is no concept of when such an event happens." 1:07:39 "There is no universal notion of time ticking away independently of frame of reference." 1:33:05 perhaps because morality is the perception of truth and beauty (assuming these are fundamental constituents of the world) that is constructed from the vantage point of one's experience of the world. and engaging by re-ordering this "truth" as you may see fit is the venture we all seek to animate on this experience of life.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Only a few minutes in , this conversation is already GOLD.

[@edithbannerman4]

@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?

[@matthewweaver3931]

As a composer, I very much disagree with Penrose about musical creation being a more flexible process than the geometric mapping he describes, and I think Dr. Peterson's comparisons to music in this discussion were on point and pretty interesting. I really appreciate his deep understanding of composition even though it isn't his field. What you can and can't write in music becomes determined by the DNA of the composition itself; this is something you create in the opening bars through motives. Of course, you could proceed to ignore your thematic material and write a lot of random unrelated things if you want, but then it will sound like shit because it will lack balance both aesthetically and mathematically . To confirm that this is true, as an experiment, you can try to see if you can write even just ONE note from Bach's C major prelude (BMV 846) better than what's in the original score. Good luck with that. I guarantee it's not possible. Why is that the case though? It's because the music has it's own logic from which all the notes spiral out of. When you deviate from that logic, it stands out in a bad way; it's kind of like a rogue cell in the body becoming malignant. There's many possibilities in developing a piece of music, but there's only one possibility that works the best in a given composition. So, even though geometric mapping isn't composition per se, what a great composer does is very related to that.

[@BillyGorst]

Thanks for the comment, really interesting. I am just getting into classical

[@isaacwong7583]

Maybe he was thinking more along the lines of jazz where there is more room for improvisation and where deviations from the structure of the music is often the whole point, but I agree with you that, there is still a certain logic to music which makes it satisfying to listen to. Like when a dissonant melody is "resolved", it's almost like finding a neat solution to a mathematical problem.

[@matthewweaver3931]

@@isaacwong7583 I'm not sure what Penrose was thinking exactly, but It seems from the context that Peterson was referring to composed music. While I agree there's flexibility and liberties that can be taken with certain types of Jazz styles, most forms of Jazz (even the most free Jazz styles) still have their own specific harmonic language and rules of development. Improvisation, in the context of very free Jazz music or quasi-free Jazz, unfolds within a logical macro structure at the very least, so it's not really free. But, If Penrose was thinking along these lines, he'd be right that there's more liberty in Jazz than other genres. I guess where I was having an issue with him was when he shut down the music comparison Peterson made even though it seemed pretty reasonable. I thought Penrose's objection here was a bit too rigid (totally unlike Jazz).

[@earendilthebright5402]

The point is more that the number of ways you can tile the plane are as a set, smaller than the number of ways you can write a piece of music. In this sense, yes, music has much more flexibility than the geometrical mapping of tiles on a plane

[@downhillphilm.6682]

Matthew, great reply. I am a performing musician (popular music field) but was a classical music major in college and learned all the basics. Can you shed light on something for me? I still listen to so-called classical music however when Bach is played Bach still (after thoroughly learning Bach harmony and counterpoint in college) amazes me in a non-technical way! By that I mean, it just feels so "logical" and perfectly peaceful in a way no other composer of that time or style since can convey. Bach is kinda of like computer generated perfection but when performed/conducted by humans there is a hard to describe perfection that is not sterile. The opening to Amadeus when Salieri is aggrandizing Mozart's music, that whole speech to me is better pointed to Bach. Having said all that, Bach is not my overall favorite but it is music I always am stopped in my tracks when I hear it. I have to absorb that perfection. I am not on drugs!!! Anyway, would like to read your response if you care to.....thanks.