"i still dont think it´s the same thing". Peterson often uses examples and metaphors that are too wide for the case. Penrose has a single clear notion of what this "is not", therefore batting down most analogies
@@Mcgernica i feel like penrose would have been open to exploring wide reaching metaphors and connections to other concepts in they had been more on point. he often noticed peterson was missing the point and clarified that hes open to changing the subject so long as its explicit and no connections are are implied between the two subjects
@@Oxydron yeah but they were both keeping it on the philosophy side. penrose was very careful to avoid shutting peterson down with actual physics and kept it to just briefly clarifying theorems and theories as it pertained to petersons philosophical interpretation. honestly peterson did not look like a professional academic that had time to prepare for this interview. maybe his schedule didnt allow it? stuck in his own interpretation of things several times in a row like a 101 student if you ask me.
@@Oxydron if theres a physicist out their that can bring complex concepts from physics into the realm of philosophy with the right conversation its penrose. and petersons reverence towards penrose suggests that he in fact prepared a lot for this interview but in a way thats very self involved. but thats just me getting into not liking peterson as an intellectual celebrity. and maybe penrose is getting too old to feild this kind of interview
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 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.
@@Theactivepsychos I don't think it's that. It's just that Penrose seems more of a balanced thinker who has learnt the limits of his conscious capability. JP has a craving for absolutes in topics he's well-informed and uninformed in, whereas Penrose seems to have come to terms with certain fundamental questions going unanswered in his lifetime, so knows where to stop inquiry and thus comes off as more humble. I wouldn't paint JP in an arrogant light though, nor Penrose as particularly humble.
@@Theactivepsychos I don't think it's that, because JP definitely backtracks and tries to understand as much as he can. At the end of the day, it's just different approaches to learning and analysis, not egotistical predisposition.
@@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 :)
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
I enjoy how careful and precise Roger Penrose is to make an erroneous connection between two seemingly related topics. As a physicist, he is concerned with the facts and reality, it is very much the case that two physics concepts are in fact very different, or else they would only require one law. He is concerned utmost with being factually correct, so as not to undermine his existing body of work and his own credibility as a Nobel Prize-winning scientist. Contrary, Peterson plays with the framework of ideas, he draws the gist out of incredibly complicated ideas from many different fields and tries to refine his mental representations by adding similar examples, very Feynman method-like, and an example of multi-modal analysis. Jordan aims to find universal truths that can be reached across multiple levels of analysis from different fields, despite not specializing or understanding the finer mechanics of those fields. This interview very much demonstrated the Harris vs. Peterson divide on the definition of truth. Penrose takes this as empirical, whereas Jordan is more open to metaphorical and narrative truths.
this is all true however I have a strange feeling Dr Peterson is trying a bit too hard here. It seems as Penrose is getting slightly annoyed at some of the attempts.
I agree with your observation. I believe both of their approaches are important because I think every human wrestles with life and ideas in these ways. Of course some more so empirically and some more relatively.
@@heywayhighway lol seemed like he grasped quite a bit for having never studied advanced mathematical physics before. As well as asked good questions and was forthright with the concepts he was struggling to grasp until he was satisfied. And then he related these concepts that were new to him to concepts he knows very well... You know, kinda like anyone who enjoys talking with others about complex ideas?
@@heywayhighway isn't it weird how easily people get salty and become haters online? What do you think makes people spend time online just trying to put others down?
First time I have heard Jordan sound more like the child rather than the father. Great conversation. Was nice to see Jordan's child like curiosity come out. Penrose is "off the scale" intelligent.
Jordan showed us he is unable to understand a shit about what Penrose work is about, and the Jordan has a collection of basic, disconnected, uncompleted pieces of knowledge about computability, AI, conciousness etc. It is the first time I have seen Peterson saying ridicolous and out of the scope things.
@@JordiLinares you didn't understand their conversation, or how understanding develops through conversation. Dr Peterson has an IQ roughly the size of your bank balance, so any respect for your comment is only from the ignorant and stupid.
@@JordiLinares dont we all? Goes to show the scale of holes in this type of knowledge from jordan and the intelligence to actually connect the dots that he has to fully grasp what he is missing
You could also see it from a positive perspective: how cool is it that Jordan surrenders and permitted himself to act like a thirsty shild squeezing out the last single drip of Penrose
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.
Likely he never daydreamed a moment of any day in his life but instead engaged intensely continuously in deep thought every second of his life. He might even be obsessively thoughtful.
I 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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 the only issue being Penrose even with his library of knowledge isnt willing to openly talk about the spiritual or metaphysical in public due to his reputation and knighthood so the issues at hand will never be solved by him🤷♂️
They were talking past each other and JBP was way out of his depth at the start. I felt Penrose was holding back quite a bit and only spoke in terms of physics and mathematics nothing more… it shut the conversation down quite a few times
@@ismaeleo I think JBP didn't do his "homework". He obviously had no idea what superposition means or what the collapse of the wave function entails. He seems to think that non-determinism or randomness is the essence of conciousness, which was show stopper for Penrose.
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.
I agree.what role emotions play is what I'm thinking.the pianist plays different ly just because he she feels like it.holds a note a little more.plays more dramatically just because the mood suggest s it?
Yes and understand the conversations and agree and disagree with or solve some of the systems, words and other forms spoken about as I enjoy doing without having any titles or over the education of time lost in some cases with those kind of humans if, in fact, you would call them that rather than nuts, eccentrics or whatever? I say that with respect to what I have been referred to over my life as a nut etc even bipolar when called that I say no Tripolar I am smarter than just a 2 polar being while I am looking at the 2polar person calling me bipolar the stupid ass.
I was just thinking about how this aspect of Peterson might be one of the reasons I find his conversations so interesting. He has a mode of thinking that seems to be very rare among scientist/intellectual communicators. When very intelligent people talk with him he makes lateral moves that nobody sees coming. It's like he's a master jazz musician, and when he closes his eyes and twiddles his fingers he's improvising a phrase that the other musicians don't see coming.
That's one his great strengths. Also sometimes a weakness though, as it can make him drift far off-topic. Which is great fun if you are just listening casually, but I imagine could have been hard for his students to follow.
That's an important aspect of his intellectual process. He is willing to attempt making connections in front of an audience and is comfortable with the possibility some may not land.
This is very valuable for intellectual progress. I've read a few times that a problem in modern academia is that all domains are so specialized that they have formed bubbles around them and rarely interact with each other, and it is indeed frowned upon if you, coming from a discipline, write bout another you are not an expert in. In the past they had greater interactivity and a lot of groundbreaking results come from these types of interactions.
If you take a step back and look at this moment objectively, it is so beautiful and what a privilege it is to be alive at a time where this conversation was both possible, as well as documented for us to watch for free. This conversation could have just as easily never manifested itself for an endless, countless slew of reasons...but it did. Thank you, Dr. Peterson.
@@psychcowboy1 Sir Roger Penrose was the one answering with intelligent answers posed by Dr. Peterson's thoughtful questions, while Dr. Peterson was in the role of the one who was using his genuine curiosity and awe, playing the role of the interviewer as well as student. He asked questions for the lot of us, given the opportunity to sit down with a man of that caliber, in his 90s. And I thanked Dr. Peterson for making this conversation possible. Because it was most certainly not Sir Roger Penrose who sought out Dr. Peterson to schedule time to sit down for an interview. Hope that explained.
@@Kroitk this is a great way to respond to that question you handled that well, and I agree 100% with your summation I love conversations like this what a privilege for us
I'd see it the other way around. Jordan laid out some good thoughts and Penrose couldn't seem to get his head around the angle in which Jordan was approaching it. Penrose was speaking like a math equation and Jordan was speaking from the philosophical side and Penrose couldn't understand the intersection of the two. Jordan saying "I'm not understanding" is a polite way of saying "You aren't getting my point, please elaborate more"
@@OfLastingThunderWhich is another way of saying that Peterson was operating only within the very limited scope of his own understanding, intent on trying to demonstrate his own point of view,, rather than just asking open questions.
@gawa9254 the questions he asked were quite simple and straight forward. Penrose sounded as though he wanted to assert his intellect by "correcting" every question. You've met these people and this is what they sound like. It's annoying.
@@OfLastingThunderIt's of no consequence whether Peterson's questions are or are not simple. It's completely plausable to look dumbfounded when the questions you are receiving have little to do with what you are saying.
@@OfLastingThunderNo Penrose was getting annoyed because Jordan made it look like he had questions but he was actually talking alone about subjects that were far from the initial assessment. Penrose couldn't elaborate that way and it's obvious that you should humble down when you speak with someone like Penrose, as Penrose's IQ must at least double Jordan's. When it comes to consciousness, Penrose should have had more time to speak, as it's his domain. I really like Jordan's conferences about psychology and I agree with him most of the time by the way.
And just like that, Dr Peterson casually drops a conversation of a lifetime... As I was listening to Sir Roger's explanation of his model of the universe, man, awe and gratitude were the only things in my mind. Once again, thank you for everything, Dr Peterson.
@@nuqwestr Penrose had to spend much of his time saying "that is not what I'm saying." Peterson kept trying to get Penrose to say something that fits his theist narrative and Penrose would not go there. Luckily, Peterson gave it a rest after a while and stopped trying steer Penrose.
@@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.
@@greyinsight This isn't normal. He was born with an exceptionally robust and wired brain, causing him to have an extremely high-IQ, defending him against cognitive-decline beyond the threshold for lost-lucidity. What you are mentioning is not on it's own enough to make a man born with an IQ of 90 to speak this way at 91 years old.
@@chasecole4841 Im aware. I simply encourage the consistent use of your brains cognitive function in all aspects rather then having it deteriorate away from lack of utilization.
@@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.
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! :)
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.
There was a fundamental misunderstanding between the reasoning and propositions between Sir Penrose and Jordan. This significantly impaired the initial discussion and the perception of the meaning of such propositions. It is necessary to fully grasp what "computational" might even mean in the simplest mathematical terms before even considering algorithmic thinking and to extend such a primordial form into questions of predicting the future and statistical phenomenon of math and physics is impossible. These two great men have shown why in some sense, social sciences and natural sciences are so disconnected and far from eachother and that it is too naive to draw conclusions about our behavior and cognitive structure from the fundamentals of logic. I had no idea we were this far behind and ofcourse I did not understand the propositions of Sir Penrose either but his borderline annoyance to the way these were taken as parts of a very different set of ideas.
Agreed. This misunderstanding (and Sir Penrose's apparent annoyance) made me a bit uncomfortable. I can't really say it's necessarily a bad thing though as I think the majority of this video's audience have a mindset and knowledge base closer to Dr. Peterson's. It certainly has made me aware how fuzzy my understanding of the term "computational" is.
I've got a bit of background in calculus and psychology, but it's not helping me here. Granted it was only a few years of each in university, but I think the problem might be that they seem to be having two different conversations or something. I've got no idea what they're talking about as of 21:44, and I've read Godel Escher Bach which I would think would be exactly what this is about.
And his description of Godel's theorem was super confusing to me. I'd phrase it more: "Any sufficiently complex set is incomplete". and "There are truths which cannot be expressed." i.e. "I am asleep".
This is the type of discussion that gives me a huge amount of hope for the future. The audience is pulled along for a ride and respected, not belittled. It says this topic is serious and should be respected, and the audience deserves to hear what has to be said. So often the corporate press treats the audience as though they are children and give them watered down version of what is to be said. This is not the case in this instance.
There is no future if we won’t stop “decolonising science” and think that math is racist. I know or hope that this is propagated by loud minorities but for some idiotic reason universities around the world bend over to this ideology.
Then you should pick a better conversation with Penrose and someone else than Peterson. Peterson only have a personal agenda. Real scientist has not. Penrose is an excellent scientist who got the Nobel prize.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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!
A fascinating conversation which seems to me to reveal more about the participants' thought process than the subject itself. Peterson continually pushes to abstract more concepts out of another, and Penrose continuously snaps him back to what is known and not known.
@Konstantin Dahlin this is true, in a way it shows a level of immaturity from Peterson, I don't mean that in a negative way, more of like a childlike curiosity. At the end of the day this is the fundamental difference between science and philosophy.
Roger Penrose is a living legend, and it's an amazing privilege to listen to him, so thank you for this conversation. 20:29 "The creative people use lower probability concepts and words in their approach." This is because in lower probability concepts and words convey more information in Information Theory, since information is defined as negative entropy. This means that there is less randomness, since entropy is basically randomness. 20:01 "Creative consciousness doesn't seem to be a random walk." Well, obviously because the less probable the idea, the less random it is, according to Information Theory. So, he understands "creativity", but he has to learn the basics of Information Theory/Cybernetics (and he should know cybernetics since it's being used extensively in psychology, and he also mentions it on one of his lectures).
@@psychcowboy1 that’s what creative people do. That exact point was touched on in the context of the conversation. Much of it is nonsense, but that’s any good conversation. Also I think there were times when Jordan was making a point that would be worth discussing but they missed each other. Partly because Jordan easily moved between levels of abstraction and also partly because Roger is less interested in meta questions about how advanced our understanding of the physical world may advance those conversations.
@@psychcowboy1 Im on my second run of this video and trying to find it, he talks absolute nonsense tangents imo. But so many people here think he's saying something amazing, can someone help me understand?
Just...no? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; you're confusing entropy and differential entropy while acting like graduate level physics is child's play while making more sketchy inferences then Penrose would dare.
@@tommorgan7599 sense of what dr Peterson says is not "in the sense of providing information" but rather "in creating environment for prof Penrose to provide some information". Thus, the most relevant information provided by dr Peterson in this video - to me - is the verbal and nonverbal example of how to speak with other person in such a way you could understand what they're saying. It's some "meta" because it is information about how to obtain information. Foolish questions and listening to the aswer explaining why you are a fool is quite a good way to do this.
I had a theoretical physicist former string theorist as my circuits professor in college and he told me that biological systems are very poorly understood by modern physics because cells often behave in opposition to how we might expect them to via entropic laws. Lots of non-optimal yet non-random action. Neat stuff.
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!
16mins into the conversation and my brain is already fried. Penrose is extremely smarter than I expected before watching the interview. And Jordan never disappoints either. The attention to details… the choice of words…. I’m speechless
I'm 14 minutes in, so I expect Penrose will astound me in the next 2 minutes. So far he's clarified that he's not talking about the hard problem of consciousness but just understanding, and claims that it can't be a result of computation. But if you take Wittgenstein's analysis of understanding and a cognitive scientist's analysis of sensorimotor feedback loops, I don't see why understanding can't be accounted for computationally. Understanding, as opposed to phenomenal consciousness, is deemed one of the "easy problems of consciousness" (Chalmers) precisely because we can see how computation could account for understanding in principle. His interpretation of Gödel is also unfamiliar. Sounds metaphorical at best. 23:00 he gives an example of non-computability, which is just the halting problem. Imagine an algorithm that just keeps computing and never yields an answer. That's a problem on idealized Turing machines, but not on wetware. Is his claim that if you can understand things that can't be computed, your understanding is non-computational? That doesn't follow. You can have a concept of infinity without counting to infinity. The concept itself still bears its syntactic relations in thought and is computed qua concept and not qua an infinitude.
The first 20 minutes are easy to get lost on because Jordan Peterson and roger penrose are talking past each other. Jordan is asking to specific a question when roger is only making a general argument. This gets resolved around 21:00 and the conversation moves on
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
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
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 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.
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.
People with sharp minds tend to live longer because they are able to take care of themselves longer, and high intelligence helps with spotting diseases very early, making early treatment possible, which increases survivability of potentially deadly or disabling diseases.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 he's just at a higher level of consciousness given his knowledge on it. has probably trained his mind a lot, so yeah he'll be very intuitive to what his body needs as you say
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.
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
Dr. Peterson, there is another physicist (turned philosopher) who wrote a lot about the nature of the mind and of consciousness, basing himself in his understanding of physics. His name was David Bohm. He is now deceased, but he wrote a book called "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" in which he discusses several things which might be relevant to this conversation, and which I found very enlightening. I recommend it to you. And while you're at it, you might as well also look into his interpretation of quantum mechanics, called Bohmian mechanics, since you showed interest in quantum theory. His interpretation gets rid of the inconsistency/incompleteness from which the standard interpretation suffers in an elegant and easy to understand way, and in a way which takes all of the apparent "magic" out of the theory. I was fascinated to see that Roger Penrose uses Godel incompleteness to support his views on the nature of consciousness, since I came to the same conclusions on my own years ago based on the same mathematics. So cool to hear my ideas coming from the mouth of such a brilliant man!
Doesn’t pilot wave theory introduce all that same regular QM magic for things like light-speed particles and such? I was pretty sure it’s pretty well debunked by the entire scientific community for fairly good reason
@@chistopherr7536 It was de Broglie, not Bohm, who developed pilot wave theory. They are similar, and some people even use "pilot wave theory" to refer to Bohm's theory, but Bohm's theory is actually called Bohmian Mechanics. It is true that problems were found in de Broglie's theory, but there are no problems with Bohmian mechanics. It is also true that it is one of the less commonly accepted theories, but not because it poses any problems. Rather, it is a matter of preference, and the fact that most prefer to simply stick with what they were taught in university.
@@chistopherr7536 And to answer your first question, while it is still non-local, it gets rid of problems with the wave-function collapse and gives a coherent way to view wave-particle duality.
Penrose being a polymath and an original thinker doesn't make his books easy to understand. But bohm's book is extremely dense especially its language. tried and failed at it
Sorry, but physicists don't "turn" into philosophers. After cognizing much on the nature of 'knowledge' itself (i.e. 'knowledge of nature' - science), they eventually accrue enough wisdom to begin thinking philosophically. Unless, of course, they are like the 'moron in the wheelchair': "Philosophy is dead, science has all the answers." - to which he turns around and re-couches originally philosophical notions as science! NO SCIENTIST, of any WORTH, would EVER say such ignorant things. If science is the father, then philosophy is like grandpa. Lionizing daddy, while demonizing grandpa just doesn't make any sense. Not long ago. science was not called "science", it was called 'natural philosophy'. In fact, what often separates the scientific heavyweights from some of their less open-minded colleagues, is that little bit of philosophical wonderment and lack of stricture that allows them to "see" that which was not originally perceived as such.
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 🙂
A better summary for Theoretical Physics would be "a whole field dedicated to trying to force unfounded materialistic beliefs to fit with empirical reality through mathematical gibberish with such a volume of low grade nonsense and self referential stupidity that makes it impossible for anyone to agree, disagree or in fact, pinpoint any single of the multiple incongruences in which it incurs."
@@manicbichon5847 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.
@@tommorgan7599 I don't have any specific one in mind but I'd imagine back in ancient Greece they had philosophy and debates and forums and we are doing a digital version of that at least thats how it feels. I think it's cool that for free we can watch this discussion and take some of these ideas on board. There's not really a barrier to entry for knowledge now if you look at the right places.
It's interesting that this conversation displays the two very different kinds of thinking that people have. Penrose attempts to reduce an idea to a point at which it cannot be reduced further, and then build a model to reliably predict that ultimately reduced idea. Whereas someone like Peterson is the exact opposite: He arrives sideways via intuition at the reduced idea that someone like Penrose is thinking of, but then attempts to expand and regrow the reduction to connect to other ideas. While these conversations are interesting, I don't think two people like Penrose and Peterson can truly have a discussion about certain ideas because they view reality with fundamentally different goals.
I felt like Peterson was outside of his wheelhouse (and said as much) when it came to quantum physics and general relativity and he spent a lot of time trying to find psychological and physiological comparisons at the beginning. I really did enjoy his explanation of his theory of the cosmos! (Einstein’s mistake part, onward) The end of infinite expansion (photon soup) is equivalent to the beginning of the expansion (also a photon soup). Very interesting! I really can’t believe Jordan gave up the thread at that point - that’s where my interest really peaked. Roger lives with cosmological timelines in his head; where the Milky Way black hole collides with Andromeda and another observer confirms his hypotheses in the next eon. Jordan’s focus on consciousness and human realizations seemed a bit too meta-physically vague for Roger. The hunt for meaning is such a small subset in his bath of mathematical truths in the cosmos. I think for him, meaning = objects + rules / spacetime
Oh very well put! I had a very similar feel of it. Really enjoyed when Sir Roger starts to go on and expand on such complex and mind-blowing stuff. I think it's especially stricking when the topic is phisics, when gifted people like him do so. But, I think it's also great when it's the other way around as well; say Dr. Jordan in his field and so on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
oh this is the craziest crossover ever. Dr. Peterson, you should also have Dr. Peter Fenwick on the podcast - he's the prominent neuropsychiatrist/physiologist who's a pioneer in near death expriences.
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.
I think the lessons from this interview is that Jordan is much more artistic in his thought process than physics normally is. And he should've also brought a notebook because he seems to not know the terms or theories that he wants to talk about which makes it hard to communicate.
It's more like an autistic person trying to grasp some portions of the reality. Peterson's ignorance in physics and mathematics actually annoyed Sir Penrose as seen in the video
He just doesn’t know enough about physics to keep up with a highly logical physicists, it feels like he just wanted to have a philosophical talk without digging into logic too much.
To be fair, I've seen Penrose interviewed by other physicists and they were as nonplussed as Peterson in their inability to pin down exactly what Penrose is getting at.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
In the future can we please have our elders come back to the library's and have conversations about ethics and mathematics and philosophy just like these men are? A place to have uninterrupted or censored views on the world. A sharing a wisdom down to the next generation. This conversation is so meaningful. It would be amazing to just sit on the floor and listen
Forget all that, be the future you want to see. We are kids playing with this fire that is the internet and social media is an out of control forest fire
Science can't find what Consciousness is, as it is not physical and Sciences study Physical Phenomena. Your name says you belong to Sanatana Dharma, you should know what Consciousness is. These deliberations are problems of materialists, mainly westerners.
@@ItsJustRyan89 dude probably best to steer clear of that one. that is clearly a cultural conversation that is lost in translation. the fact that you mistake it for something that is supposed to make sense in your native language and idiom is the issue. If you put it in their language and cultural context that response made perfect sense. It is not someone trying to appear smart...
@@therealbs2000 Wrong. It doesn't make any sense to make a comment in a cultural context while simultaneously using the prerogatives invented by the westerners, while calling them materialists. I am an indian, and I know this to be true.
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.
I'm going to be honest, I like peterson a lot but he seems extremely underprepared for this conversation. He uses a lot of poetry and words to cover up a deep lack of understanding of quantum mechanics. I don't blame him as it's hard to speak about physics at a deep level without mathematics. But anyone who has studied QM can see peterson isn't understanding penrose.
Jordan always comes unprepared for these kind of conversations, when discussing Zizek about Marxism he only read the manifiesto, not even The Capital. Ignoring everything in the work of Penrose, which is far harder to understand if you don't know mathematics, it's something I would already except from Peterson, but he could at least study a little before these conversations.
@@Traigame2cervezas Can’t blame him; one should quickly skim through the Manifesto and only bother reading the first few pages of Das Kapital to understand how asinine it is. Especially the latter, which is highly regarded as erroneous and lacking any substantial, empirical evidence. The ramblings of a failed economist and an unsanitary grifter; something Peterson would agree with
I agree, I see the issue very similar to trying to analyze the world from a non-fundamental (Peterson) view you'll see patterns at higher levels of abstractions such as human psychology, region, etc because it's all based on the fundamentals so theory with explained at the human level in a non-mathmatical or fundamental way will be incomplete. If that makes sense.
@@jeremydoerksen5988 I honestly would be interested in seeing Jordan understand basic linear algebra and calculus. It would allow him to understand so much more. His understanding is much less than an average undergraduate at oxford.
The immense respect these interlocutors have for the process of discovery is revelatory. This is how great minds pursue a shared understanding of reality. The thinking world should pay attention.
What 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.
'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.
"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.
@@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.
I love how Jordan throughout the whole conversation is just overwhelmed with excitement. Yes he doesn't have a solid understanding of material physical concepts and some of his questions were funny but I'm pretty sure that with the impact he had on many people, even his little silly questions will make young mathematicians and physicists wonder about the connections he mentioned. "Children are not afraid to ask basic questions that might embarrass us the adults" just as Penrose himself said.
Is it selfish of me to want to hold on to Roger for longer than he is destined to survive?? It's going to devastate me when he's gone, I utterly adore him - so eloquent.
That’s the most backhanded condescending insult I have ever read. “Little silly questions”? Peterson is a highly credentialed professional who isn’t afraid to find out how things beyond his wheelhouse may be brought to bear to illuminate the ideas that interest him. You have exposed yourself as a petty jealous person.
@@uraniumu242 LMAO I love what Peterson does but I'm not ignorant enough to pretend that he has enough maths knowledge for this discussion (he is a scientist but a qualitative one, not quantitative). I would recommend you watch other interviews of Penrose. Also, this is exactly the snowflaking that Peterson talks about xD
yea though id kinda want if peterson had maybe read penrose's books before so he had some basic understanding of things like computation/non-computational problems. idk i didnt feel like penrose was enjoying his questions
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.
I was first introduced to Penrose when Lex Friedman did a podcast with him, then last year re watched the podcast on LSD listening to him explain consciousness made me feel like I was about to leave the matrix and spent several hours trying to understand orchestrated objective reduction lmao, as a biochemisty student interested specifically in neuropharmacology+chemistry, opened up a new interest in the nature of consciousness and how these things go beyond high levels of neurological computation, and in a very meta way question what understanding truly is. Im halfway through here now, and this is an excellent discussion. Very cool to see JP trying to learn and wrap his head around these topics along with us instead of him being a lecturer.
This was an absolute brilliant attempt at bridging mathematics, physics, psychology and philosophy. Thankyou for this conversation fellas, it was well worth the watch.
@@thedolphin5428 Its not that he's a know it all, he's just educated in a way of thinking which doesn't permit the use of concepts outside of the frame of science which is unfortunately a huge flaw. This goes for most modern physicists...he certainly knows what JBP is saying but cant play ball in that court as it will ruin his reputation among his peers. He's a Sir because he holds up the scientific status quo....if he was to start blabbing about metaphysics, spirituality and "magick" he would be labelled a buffoon and thrown under the bus.
@@ryancoxy91 No, I didn't want or expect him to talk about gobbledygook. I just wanted him to treat JBP as an intelligent, enquiring human to ENGAGE WITH. He must know JBP is a broad-minded pychologist but he treated him like an imbecile. He MADE NO BRIDGES towards understanding -- as you first commented.
I just love how Roger started engaging as soon as Jordan could see the links that were happening within Rogers brain. Really interesting conversation, I'm sure a mentally stretching one for both of them.
I don't see how any of this would be mentally stretching for Sir Penrose, except in understanding the questions. Dr. Peterson, yes obviously. But Sir Penrose I think was completely within his comfort zone.
@@89abhinav I disagree, see Jordan very intentionally tried to steer Rogers towards a conversation of meaning, and often Rogers would think about it and then reign himself in to his field of expertise and not try to comment on things that his mind hadn't yet contemplated.
It’s so amazing to see Jordan Peterson out of his main field. You really get to see his *mind* here not just his knowledge. I love apparent purpose of his questions
Pretty bad interview though. He asks creative questions that Penrose often blows off because he’s not quite getting it or he denies Peterson’s premises. Seems that Peterson is trying to extract some simplistic, philosophical understanding from something which is deeply mechanical and can not be judged in an aesthetic way, but rather a concrete and irrefutable type of science. Not the best combination of talents here
@@IanSmithKSP I agree, I think you put it quite nicely in this comment. The contrast between Peterson trying to find something that is symbolic and abstract and Penrose describing something that is extremely mechanical and detailed really makes it hard for them to find common productive ground. I found it very apparent when they talked about ie the tiling problem.
@@jamesbogart It's about his curiosity, not about what he does or doesn't understand. It's a conversation, not a debate. He wants to learn from it, not debase the other. Which is how every intelligent conversation should go.
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.
This is probably one of the most amazing videos I have watched in a long time. I have pondered the existence of the universe since I was a child, and I have hypothesized the exact thoughts Penrose spoke of near the end of this video. I have thought of both the expanding and collapsing theory and the this continual theory many times. I could not put it into mathematical or scientific language as Penrose did though. This is amazing, thank you.
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.
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.
@@psychcowboy1 What are you talking about? I haven't even watched the interview yet, I'm just responding to what that other guy said about you. I would seriously advise talking a break from the internet mate
Amazing. At 1:22:19, the interviewer should have let the Sir Penrose finish his thoughts. Penrose had just nailed it - that the Big Bang as a massless event is a continuum of the dark, cold, run-away universe but it was late in the interview; we may never know what this brilliant person had in mind to bridge that gap. Still great to hear this enlightening cycle of nature which means we are in a continuous system.
It's like photons occupy the whole universe eventually, and they're massless or their mass is infinitely small and they don't feel passage of time can't tell big from small and they are absolute energy which results in a new big Bang that's how I understood this.
@@kirillsleptsov1680 Yes Time and Size doesn't matter. What makes the photons clump together (aka gravity) to begin the process of attraction to form the next big bang is an enigma. Size will automatically get bigger once the attractive process is restored.
Jordan, you don't even realize it, but you just put an end to a suspense that has been with me for a long time. Years ago, Penrose spoke with Lex Fridman, and just as he brought up the subject of this very podcast, Lex "stupidly" (no offense to him) interrupts him and asks a pointless question and then they change the subject. I was always frustrated that I couldn't attend Penrose developing this topic; so much so that I wrote to his university, and even to himself, to see if there was a place where he had done this thinking, where I could read more. Unfortunately, I never got an answer. Today you end a long wait and a frustration that had been in place for a long time. Thank you a thousand times over for this discussion.
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.
Dr Peterson is always so dominant in regard to being a philosophical and literary giant, I think he found it refreshing to be in the presence of intelligence that can give him the joy of feeling like a student. No disrespect to Peterson of course
Agreed. I also respect the way he's reaching out to Penrose and his field, that is a separate universe and builds communication. That approach itself is priceless.
Roger Penrose's sometimes partner, Stuart Hameroff, in consciousness studies (an emeritus Professor of both Anesthesiology and Psychology) is equally interesting. You've seen him speak, and you should also interview him!
This is amazing to me, I love how I understand the basic concepts of this conversation without having a high level understanding of mathematics and physics or psychology and get to enjoy the back and forth of specialists in separate Fields as Peterson trys to hash a common understanding with Penrose about the nature of reality in an hour and a half.
I love that Jordan is trying so hard to ask tremendous and profound questions, and at the same time, the place he’s coming from is so fundamentally different than Penrose that sometimes the questions don't seem to compute. Then, around the 1hr mark, Jordan humbly admits to being out of his depth with regards to these topics while, at the same time, he's asking questions that are incredibly insightful in an abstract sense. It's always a toss-up as to whether people who think in two profoundly different manners will get along with each other. I think by the 1hr mark, Penrose is beginning to get that Jordan isn't trying to be obtuse or sneaky but that the gulf between the two kinds of thinking is what makes Jordan hard to understand from a concrete thinker’s standpoint.
Great job Jordan! From my distance I could see complexity of the subject matter is that of profound depth. Once I realized this, it became easy to grant your awesome minds the patience of my attention and the effort of my focus. Just wanted to tell you that you did a great job after asking the first question and probably seeing for yourself my opinion about the patience’s one should expect when exploring waters that are reserved for the deepest of thinkers and hungriest of seekers…. It was great how you went “into your inner child” and responded to him with shared excitement! So great man! This had the potential to be a tricky interview and you really showed some incredible interviewing skills! So glad to see you are Ok and still churning out the ridiculous level of young men with a huge level of appreciation, love, and gratitude for newfound glory one can uncover in their lives. Good bless u man. Hope your enjoying life, and the love of all the people you have helped engulfs you in a peaceful gratification. Thank I for illuminating ways to release some of the pain we creat by “not knowing how to do this thing called life” it would mean the world to know you too feel the peace of mind you have helped so much to distribute! ✌️♥️
