Korean Physicist says Consciousness does not Compute and Never Will.
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
I don't know enough about computers to be able to really comment in depth, but the statement he makes in this article are far more important than perhaps they seem to be. If he is correct then by proving that a computer will never be able to achieve consciousness he just might be solving the mind brain problem as well.
"If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."
Interesting stuff and it was a good read. Thanks for the link.
The original paper,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1617
Here is a link to another paper he has published,
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/251
And a link to, apparently, a rebuttal of some of his work mentioned in the OP,
http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/175
And as I read more in to Daegene Song it appears he is rife with interesting controversy,
December 21, 2010 (MMD Newswire) — “I think, therefore…” Senior research scientist Daegene Song of Handong Global University in South Korea has come up with a model of the universe – and reality – that may be at least as paradigm-shattering as Copernicus’ (and later Galileo’s) pronouncement that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of vice-versa. Actually, in Dr. Song’s view, that heliocentric (sun-centered) model is passe, being a product of the millennia-old “objective universe” model. Dr. Song posits instead a “subjective universe,” arguing that the planets, stars, and other heavenly bodies are not a collection of physical objects that would be there even if we didn’t exist to observe them. The universe, he asserts, can only be a subjective phenomenon of our experience. And he says he has done the math – literally – to support his assertions.
“Not only does my research offer a mathematical resolution for a subjective universe,” he explains, “it also suggests that humans are not mere machines but a unique creation. Furthermore – and I know this will make my work controversial if nothing else does – I believe my findings rebuke the theory of evolution."
Those are pretty big claims, sure to raise eyebrows in the scientific community. Dr. Song is prepared to deal with the controversy, being a serious researcher who obtained his Ph.D. in physics at Oxford and did post-doctoral work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland and the Korea Institute for Advanced Study in Seoul. He also admits to being a believer in the Bible, and is forthright about the fact that he was driven in his research by a desire to see if science could actually explain where we come from, why we are here, and where we go after we die.
Dr. Song has published technical papers about the subjective universe, most notably, in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics in July 2008, and he has also delivered seminars at conferences of his peers for the last three years. He gave talks about quantum theory and consciousness at three major conferences in Austria, Hungary, and Italy in 2007, and in 2008 he spoke about the subjective universe at the Fourth International Workshop DICE 2008 in Italy.
and it goes on to say,
Then what about that scientific sacred cow, evolution? Explains Dr. Song, “In the subjective universe model, unlike the objective model, the universe has not existed for billions of years apart from my own existence. This is the complete opposite of Darwin’s evolution theory in which my existence is assumed to result from the process of evolution over a very long period of time. In the subjective universe model, the evolution theory does not even have a remote chance of being true.” So does this end the scientific debate about the origin of our species? Not necessarily, says Dr. Song. Instead of the choices being between evolution and creationism, as in the objective model, the subjective model presents two new choices, as Dr. Song explains: “Either (1) I am created by a Creator; or (2) I exist by myself and am the Creator of my own being.” That will still make for some intriguing debates.
Interesting stuff and it was a good read. Thanks for the link.
The original paper,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1617
Here is a link to another paper he has published,
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/251
And a link to, apparently, a rebuttal of some of his work mentioned in the OP,
http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/175
And as I read more in to Daegene Song it appears he is rife with interesting controversy,
December 21, 2010 (MMD Newswire) — “I think, therefore…” Senior research scientist Daegene Song of Handong Global University in South Korea has come up with a model of the universe – and reality – that may be at least as paradigm-shattering as Copernicus’ (and later Galileo’s) pronouncement that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of vice-versa. Actually, in Dr. Song’s view, that heliocentric (sun-centered) model is passe, being a product of the millennia-old “objective universe” model. Dr. Song posits instead a “subjective universe,” arguing that the planets, stars, and other heavenly bodies are not a collection of physical objects that would be there even if we didn’t exist to observe them. The universe, he asserts, can only be a subjective phenomenon of our experience. And he says he has done the math – literally – to support his assertions.
“Not only does my research offer a mathematical resolution for a subjective universe,” he explains, “it also suggests that humans are not mere machines but a unique creation. Furthermore – and I know this will make my work controversial if nothing else does – I believe my findings rebuke the theory of evolution."
Those are pretty big claims, sure to raise eyebrows in the scientific community. Dr. Song is prepared to deal with the controversy, being a serious researcher who obtained his Ph.D. in physics at Oxford and did post-doctoral work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland and the Korea Institute for Advanced Study in Seoul. He also admits to being a believer in the Bible, and is forthright about the fact that he was driven in his research by a desire to see if science could actually explain where we come from, why we are here, and where we go after we die.
Dr. Song has published technical papers about the subjective universe, most notably, in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics in July 2008, and he has also delivered seminars at conferences of his peers for the last three years. He gave talks about quantum theory and consciousness at three major conferences in Austria, Hungary, and Italy in 2007, and in 2008 he spoke about the subjective universe at the Fourth International Workshop DICE 2008 in Italy.
and it goes on to say,
Then what about that scientific sacred cow, evolution? Explains Dr. Song, “In the subjective universe model, unlike the objective model, the universe has not existed for billions of years apart from my own existence. This is the complete opposite of Darwin’s evolution theory in which my existence is assumed to result from the process of evolution over a very long period of time. In the subjective universe model, the evolution theory does not even have a remote chance of being true.” So does this end the scientific debate about the origin of our species? Not necessarily, says Dr. Song. Instead of the choices being between evolution and creationism, as in the objective model, the subjective model presents two new choices, as Dr. Song explains: “Either (1) I am created by a Creator; or (2) I exist by myself and am the Creator of my own being.” That will still make for some intriguing debates.
Last edited:
Adding to your post, here is Song's reply to the rebuttal you posted
http://neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/176/176
http://neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/176/176
??? Penrose made these arguments a long time ago.
The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics is a 1989 book by mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose.
Penrose argues that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer.
The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics is a 1989 book by mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose.
Penrose argues that human consciousness is non-algorithmic, and thus is not capable of being modeled by a conventional Turing machine-type of digital computer.
All that said Dr Song is both correct and incorrect. Yes humans are a unique creation. But so are hydrangeas. But I'd guess that by "consciousness" he means human-like awareness and perspectives. Can there be machines that have self and environment awareness? Sentience? Yes.
BTW an amusing aside is that Data's creator is Dr Soong.
BTW an amusing aside is that Data's creator is Dr Soong.
Last edited:
If this newswire quote is correct, Dr. Song unfortunately loses a lot of credibility. He seems to be rejecting evolution and going for special creation, but somewhat obfuscating this by an ambiguous turn of phrase. Evidence for there having been a long overall evolutionary process (of some kind though not mainly Darwinian) is overwhelming, over a total of 3 billion years. And for specifically human evolution what we see in paleontology and anthropology is a gradual though somewhat stepwise advance toward Homo Sapiens in physiology, neurology and culture over a period of a couple of million years, with major stages being forms such as Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus.
Please explain how Dr. Song in his statement “Either (1) I am created by a Creator; or (2) I exist by myself and am the Creator of my own being” isn't rejecting the physical history of there having been a long evolutionary process (of whatever nature) that ultimately led to Homo Sapiens. His clear implication is that the massive fossil record and the many other types of evidence for evolution having actually happened must be deceptions created to test man's faith (as is espoused by many Creationists). Unfortunately, such views don't lead me to put much stock in his analysis, as much as I agree that Strong AI (machine consciousness) will never be achieved. Of course, his quoted statement may actually be symbolic or allegorical, but then he would be deliberately ambiguous to avoid too much criticism.
Neither view necessarily nullifies evolution. Expand that to the more complete quote:
I think you are reading into it from an entirely physical perspective. What I get from that is, that we as beings (not humans) may have been created by another, or are the creator of ourselves in a very meta sort of way.
The evolutionary record may very well be a tale of HUMAN origins, but not the origins of us as BEINGS.
I could totally be wrong, and this is my interpretation of his above statements.
Now, if you'd like to argue that from a purely physical perspective he would be denying the entire evolutionary record, I suppose you'd be correct. A purely physical perspective does not allow for anything beyond the physical. There is no difference between human and Being. The only "being" is the physical human.
I think you are reading into it from an entirely physical perspective. What I get from that is, that we as beings (not humans) may have been created by another, or are the creator of ourselves in a very meta sort of way.
The evolutionary record may very well be a tale of HUMAN origins, but not the origins of us as BEINGS.
I could totally be wrong, and this is my interpretation of his above statements.
Now, if you'd like to argue that from a purely physical perspective he would be denying the entire evolutionary record, I suppose you'd be correct. A purely physical perspective does not allow for anything beyond the physical. There is no difference between human and Being. The only "being" is the physical human.
