summersale2015 Hier klicken Jetzt Mitglied werden studentsignup Cloud Drive Photos SonyRX100 Learn More UrlaubundReise Fire HD 6 Shop Kindle Sparpaket SummerSale

Ihre Bewertung(Löschen)Ihre Bewertung


Derzeit tritt ein Problem beim Filtern der Rezensionen auf. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.

6 von 6 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich.
am 24. März 2000
First, what this book is not: It is not "creation science"...it doesn't address evolution...or the existence of God...or existence of the human soul. In other words, it is NOT special pleading against modern science by someone with a religious agenda. What it IS rather, is a solid study of cognition, theories of artificial intelligence, and the enduring problem of the nature of human consciousness by one of the world's top physicists (a professed materialist by the way, not a religious believer), who together with Stephen Hawking developed the astrophysics of "black holes" in the '60's. What Penrose suggests here (a theory he expands on in his subsequent "Shadows of the Mind"), is that science, and specifically physics, is inadequate now, and more importantly will always be inadequate, to describe the nature of human intelligence, cognition, and consciousness--a thesis similar to the showing of Godel's 1931 Theorem that certain fundamental axioms of mathematics were incapable of proof within any mathematical system. In other words, Penrose suggests that there are elemental restrictions within science itself limiting our understanding of our own mental processes, which concomitantly limit the possibilities for development of artificial intelligence. And that obviously doesn't sit well with those for whom naturalistic science is itself a kind of "religion," as some of the dismissive reviews on this page show. My advice: just ignore them and read this book, and well as its successor, "Shadows of the Mind." It's a challenging read and not for intellectual lightweights, but it will richly reward those with the patience to make it through.
0KommentarWar diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinSenden von Feedback...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Missbrauch melden
2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich.
am 18. Mai 2000
Penrose is inviting the reader to a weekend fishing expedition. He hopes to catch a whopper and get a group snapshot -- refutation of hard AI. The bait he offers is rather strange: quasicrystaline analogy of dendritic spine growth and contraction; a Platonic, timeless world of mathematical truth; something he calls CQG (Correct Quantum Gravity) with its one graviton criterion and two quantum processes he calls U and R. If you swallow this strange bait then you are hooked and don't blame anyone else when you wake up sizzling in frying pan oil.
On the plus side Penrose throws caution to the wind in trying to pin down the ever elusive human consciousness. He constructs for the reader a mental mirror in which to view the Tower of Babel world of Artificial Intelligence. However, in trying to use the child's view metaphor positively he makes the mistake of rattling off a string of "whys" that can never be answered. Setting up the mind-body dichotomy in any form presents only a chicken-egg question. If consciousness is located in the reticular formation of the brain, why there? As to memory -- just because the sound of music can be stored on magnetic tape, the sounds replayed are only virtual or copycat sound from the real, live orchestra. The brain may be merely a recording device and consciousness only a playback of this recording.
Penrose is very puzzled and perplexed that his geometrically formulated ideas don't translate well into words. Penrose laments that consciousness may not possess the active skills (free will) and is left with merely a spectator role. His speculations lead the reader into the quantum vacuum foam, to a head full of constantly emerging sub-quantum singularities or submicro-wormholes, framing human consciousness as a model for the mind of a deity. Amen.
0KommentarWar diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinSenden von Feedback...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Missbrauch melden
2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich.
am 3. September 1998
There are two central themes to this book - first, a rejection of strong AI as a theory of consciousness, and second, the conjecture that the failure is related to the philosophical problems of quantum theory.
The first is very lucidly argued and does NOT, in the words of one frustrated (but clearly lazy) reviewer rely on some wishy-washy claim that the real world is too complicated for a computer to "understand". Nor has it anything to do with an appreciation of beauty.
Instead, it relies of Godel's theorem, which states that propositions can be true but non-algorithmic (non-provable by algorithm). Penrose claims that these same truths can nonetheless be grasped (and understood to be true) by human minds.
The second theme - the relationship of the failure of AI to quantum theory - is conjectural but fascinating.
I urge people to make the effort to read this book, by one of the great mathematical physicists of the post-war era.
0KommentarWar diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinSenden von Feedback...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Missbrauch melden
1 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich.
am 17. Juli 1998
This is a book of insights. Penrose is touching the edge of the truth about the human mind but just missed it. I am now reading another book that has a section called "Emperor Penrose's Mind". In my opinion, that book is truly revolutionary in helping us understand the nature of reality and of the human mind. The author suggests that the square root of -1 is the psy-factor in laws of quantum mechanics and theories of relativity. He also shows why John Searle, Douglas Hofstdater and Denial Dennett all committed the Fallacy of Unity Projection. the author agrees with Penrose that quantum mechanics is a possible key to the mystery of the mind, and the mind is more fundamental than material. The most fascinating part is that all these ideas are demonstrated in sci-fi like adventure stories (thought experiments) in virtual reality. The title of the book is, Get Real: A Philosophical Adventure in Virtual Reality, by Philip Zhai.
0KommentarWar diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinSenden von Feedback...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Missbrauch melden
1 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich.
am 14. Januar 1997
This book, together with its companion Shadows of the Mind, is the
result of many years thought by one of Britain's most original scientific
thinkers. It contains a fantastic sweep through classical and quantum
physics as well as Godel's theorem, Turing machines, and the like.
His conclusion - the mind is not governed purely by algorithmic processes -
is highly unpopular with many philosophers and the AI community. However it
is very carefully argued and apart from anything else makes a significant
contribution by laying out in a very clear way the logical options
available in understanding aspects of how the mind might compute.
Many of those working on understanding the mind do not want to be told
they will have to get deeply involved in quantum mechanical issues
before they will get anywhere near their goal. However Penrose makes
a profound argument that this is in fact the case
0KommentarWar diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinSenden von Feedback...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Missbrauch melden
4 von 5 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich.
am 2. Oktober 1997
I found the book to actually be more interesting in its discussion of physics and quantum mechanics than when I got to his thesis on mind and the computational impossibility of reproducing it in a computer. Although most of this is lucidly written and meticulous in its attention to detail, Penrose's final conclusion that the mind must have a quantum-mechanical aspect is unsupported by any evidence and seems to come from nowhere but his own deep desire to be more than chemicals. For me, the weakest part of the argument (in fact the only "evidence" he gives for his conclusion, really!) is the discussion of how long it takes a computer algorithm to solve a particular type of problem vs. how long it takes a person. It seems plausible, but ignores the fact that in this world, thousands of people work in parallel and cooperatively over many years to solve difficult problems and build on previous successes and failures. It ignores the roles of specialized education, folk knowledge, anecdotal evidence and how all of these result in common-sense elimination of fruitless pathways and recognition of fruitful pathways in human problem-solving.
Nevertheless, I found his physics primer (the first several chapters) to be better than many I have read, and the whole book gave me many nights of weird dreams. At the end, though, I wound up disappointed and feeling like I had been hoodwinked into someone's attempt to logically deduce his own personal faith.
0KommentarWar diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinSenden von Feedback...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Missbrauch melden
1 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich.
am 9. Juni 2000
I can't say enough for this book. Whether or not you agree with Penrose's idea that science will never be enough to grasp human consciousness or not, this book is a fascinating journey into Quantum Physics, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and a good time to evaluate your own thoughts on human consciousness based on logic and science rather than a spiritual approach regardless of your feelings on Penrose's postulations.
I must give a word of caution to a would-be reader, this is not a book for someone not willing to get through some technical stuff. If you only want to be spoon-feed an opinion without understanding HOW the opinion was formed, this is not the book for you.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
0KommentarWar diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinSenden von Feedback...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Missbrauch melden
am 27. März 1999
While parts of this book devoted to the popular description of concepts of modern physics and mathematics hold a pedagogical value for a lay reader, the rest of the book is really poor. The author makes an extremely loose connections between completely unconnected problems, and with surprising immodesty puts forward an extremely contrived theory of mind without providing any semblance of logic, let alone proof. For any scientist familiar with both quantum mechanics and some basic knowledge of biology of the CNS, the main thesis of the book that consciousness is somehow connected to the quantum mechanics of the brain function should certainly look ridiculous; it's a completely arbitrary connection, and no proof is even suggested. The author in effect attempts to employ a very cheap trick to solve two of the greatest problems of modern science and philosophy, the problem of consciousness and the problem of (apparent) ambiguities in the formulation of quantum physics, by deciding to cancel them against each other, linking them with an arbitrary mental construction. How convenient! The suggestion that Godel's theorem proves that human thought is non-algorithmic is laughable; while the theorem is one of the greatest achievements of modern logic, it is only relevant for symbol-based computation, and our brain certainly isn't a purely symbol-manipulating machine: most neural-network computations are not based on applying symbolic rules, although they can be implicitly algorithmic. Besides, to suggest that humans can never encounter a statement that can be neither proved nor disproved is almost humorous in its arrogance: the problem of consciousness alone holds lots of such examples; problems of ethics is another great example. Penrose's argument will only be applicable when we discover a theory of everything and there will be no philosophical questions left to be solved for humanity; only in that case one could say that there are no contradictory statements for a human mind. ...I could go on and on, but this is too long already. I personally find it fascinating that an undoubtedly talented scientist like Penrose, one of the greatest mathematicians of our times, can come up with something as absurd. I guess this can teach the rest of us something about how the human brain works, after all...
0KommentarWar diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinSenden von Feedback...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Missbrauch melden
am 16. Oktober 1998
Penrose is DEAD RIGHT. Strong AI is a nonsense. The irrational, subjective, mishmash of the childish and the spiritual; the experience of sudden inspiration, the emotionally biased reasoning to get the result we WANT as opposed to the result dictated by pure logic; these will NEVER be replicated by computers. The fact that anyone would even support this idea is proof of the unstable way in which we reason - why passionately support something which will never work? (How can you smugly announce that a machine can have the same definition of Intelligent as a human when the study of the mind and its workings are at an infantile stage of early development. Such arrogance! You cannot argue by saying that a selected number of outcomes are the same. If I wear my hair the same way as Pavarotti and put on 120 pounds does that mean I am a great singer? DUH!!). Because you are subjective and emotional you are attached to strong AI in the way a child is attached to a comfort blanket. You have committed so much time and vocal support to your backing of the idea that you CANNOT let go of it without losing face. It is a beautiful example of Dr. Robert Cialdini's description in "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" of the fatal human propensity to consistency. (And there's another quality you will not find in a strong AI machine!). Strong AI is strictly for Trekkies - "strong AI machines are better than humans; strong AI machines do not have to deal with human emotions (nasty unquantifiable things!!); therefore as a supporter of Strong AI machines I do not have to deal with my emotions. Viola! It is all right for me not to be able to cope with life ... because it's LIFE that's wrong, not me!." If anyone can put the irrationality WHICH IS PART OF THE DFINITION OF BEING HUMAN on a glass slide, they will be in Penrose country. Handle it.
0KommentarWar diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinSenden von Feedback...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Missbrauch melden
am 21. Juni 1996
In his book, "The Emperor's New Mind", Roger Penrose
attempts to show that the computational approach to
artificial intelligence, is, as he puts it, untenable.
Also referred to as functionalism, or "strong AI",
computational AI is based on the notion that thought is a
computational process which need not be bound to a
particular type of computer. In other words, a sufficiently
complex computer should be able to run the same "programs"
as those the human brain utilizes. Penrose takes exception
to this is a major way. His arguments are based partly on
his assertion that the conscious mind simply cannot work
like a computer, and partly on his own definition of what
the term "computation" means. As such, the book is an
attempt at a poke in the nose for the supporters of strong
AI, but it misses the mark. Pro-computational AI works such
as Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal
Golden Braid" have a sense of weight and depth which
Penrose's book lacks. Penrose sometimes sounds more like a
person who simply wants a reason, any reason, to believe,
like Decartes, that there is an extra ingredient to the mix
that makes up mind. Unlike Descartes, Penrose isn't willing
to come right out and claim the existence of a "soul" or
some other immaterial "stuff", but he does hold that there
is more to emotional response, appreciation of beauty, and
feelings of love than can be captured in a computational
algorithm. In the book "Daydreaming in Humans and Machines",
Erik Mueller has shown that it is indeed possible to encode
emotional drives into a computer program, and it actually
isn't all that hard to do. "The Emperor's New Mind" is well
written, although a bit convoluted in places, but it just
doesn't have the punch it needs to really take a firm
stance against the computational approach to artificial
intelligence. Nonetheless, for all its faults it should be on the reading
list of anyone seriously interested in artificial intelligence
or cognitive philosophy, if for no other reason than to show
how not to argue against a well-entrenched paradigm.
0KommentarWar diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?JaNeinSenden von Feedback...
Vielen Dank für Ihr Feedback.
Wir konnten Ihre Stimmabgabe leider nicht speichern. Bitte versuchen Sie es später noch einmal.
Missbrauch melden
     
 
Kunden, die diesen Artikel angesehen haben, haben auch angesehen


What is Life? (Canto)
What is Life? (Canto) von Erwin Schrödinger
EUR 12,60