Matt. Penrose often hides his original thoughts behind suggestive questions. IMO, what he means by this is that a computer cannot duplicate human consciousness architecture. I support that view.
I also support your view that extended LLMs could be enabled with a relative version of a "consciousness" architecture. I agree with John's implication that a specific Turing complete machine objective is worthy of pursuing. However, the industry obsession with trying to equal intelligent machines to humans is proving counter productive to Western competitive advancement. As a Western society, not only as the elite ruling the society. The Pacific-East don't seem to suffer from such delusions. They strive purely to optimize machine intelligence reality as interactive enabler of human reality. In the empirical literature this becomes abundantly clear. Starting nearly 30 years behind the global AI dev curve, the Pacific-East achieved AI dominance within a specific cycle of the last 18 years. Smart Westerners would rapidly adopt such empirical evidence and catch up. Even so, careful curation of AI developmental knowledge by the East seems to be intentional, to keep the Western adoptive lag by at least 3 years. The only real competitive option for the West seems to point to adapting and jumping the curve as the Pacific-East did. However, Western socio-economic infrastructure was designed for mistrust and name-brand dominent profiteering, not collaboration-based collective progress. IMO, self defeating. It may yet prove easier to develop AI with human-like reasoning and machine consciousness, than fixing the human-human collaborative infrastructrural chasm in the West. We all need a "partizan hero". We've been brainwashed to need it. Without it, society tends to collapse into chaos. In general, the West don't tend to encourage and enable human agency as peer members of a neural network. On the contrary, organized socialized, neural networks are generally viewed as "potential threats", which are actively being neutralized and controlled via disruptive and destructive AI-enabled social-media like structures and selective access control to critical resources. By direct contrast, I think the Pacific-East employ their coherent collective-interest driven collaborative resources to architect competitive socio-technical developmental resilience. Based on my analysis, for the world this remains a People <=> Organization <=> Process synthesis problem, not a Technology problem. Yet, we focus on Technology as our champion, as our "hero". We are an intentionally divided civilization. How can we expect different resilience outcomes when we institutionalize the same intentional errors? Einstein referred to such behavior as madness. Is this civilization certifiably mad? On Tue, 11 Aug 2026, 01:08 Matt Mahoney, <[email protected]> wrote: > Penrose believed that the human mind does things that are not computable, > stuff like consciousness, feelings, intuition, creativity, insight, free > will, qualia. To prove it, he looked for quantum effects in the brain that > could not be simulated on a non quantum computer. He and Hameroff found > quantum superposition in the protein structure of microtubules in neurons > and argued that no computer could simulate this. > > Of course he was wrong. We now have LLMs that pass the Turing test, which > means they have all the properties that he argued were not computable. It > turns out you don't have to model microtubules to build a neural network, > just like you don't have to model quantum tunneling of gate electrons in > SSD memories to model the digital logic of a computer. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 9:53 PM John Rose via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 10:38 PM, Quan Tesla wrote: >> >> Thanks John. I like this a lot. >> >> The Orch-OR premise would be, when you observe locally, you collapse the >> [local] wave function. >> >> >> If I’m correct consciousness is going to be protocol agnostic, able to be >> instantiated across substrates. Lowest level pancomputational/panphsychist >> substrates might be quantum fields, a qubit framework, quantum state >> topologies, Planck level automata, even ether. Was reading Ken Wheeler on >> magnetism and ether, very interesting not sure the state of that lately. >> Not sure of the most correct contemporary reality substrate there seems to >> be many... And I like when intelligence is described as a physically >> defined entity for example a field with dynamical laws in spacetime. Then >> higher order intelligences and consciousnesses like human an AI can be >> described as structures built on a base. Text is mostly UI and data storage >> in my opinion. >> >> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T906c878e4ba411be-M61255954fb715249b2a3be5f> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T906c878e4ba411be-M421f3fc7472b30f3e00f4a33 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
