One Mile Walk

Platonic

         Last night I finished reading The Emperor's New Mind by Roger Penrose, every single page of 581, written 33 years ago. I could follow each sentence, most paragraphs, and some chapters as a whole. But in a few places I was just bewildered.
         Near the end, I think he is referring to the transcendent grasp of reality that evades a simple description in words or language. A feeling of correctness without proof. He spent 400 pages showing the methods of mathematical proofs, a smattering of quantum physics, and finally a rudimentary description of the neurological workings of the brain. Then he jumps past all that and says there is some non-computable relationships that form our consciousness (p552-p555 Contact with Plato's World and A View of Physical Reality). Some kind of platonic understanding of reality. Apparently a new use for the word Platonic.
         So I looked up the definition: From the free dictionary definitions:
         Platonic
         Adjective: nonphysical, ideal, intellectual, spiritual, idealistic, transcendent - ie. Their relationship was purely platonic.
         Platonic
         Also found in: Thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
         Related to Platonic: Platonic love, Platonic relationship
         Pla·ton·ic (plə-tŏn′ĭk, plā-)
         adj.
         1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of Plato or his philosophy: Platonic dialogues; Platonic ontology.
         2. often platonic Friendly or affectionate without involving sexual relations: platonic love.
         3. often platonic Speculative or theoretical.

         I think it is really quite clear where consciousness comes from. Our neurological systems are monstrously preoccupied with running the body. Most of us can actually sense the touching of a single hair (when we are paying attention) and there are millions of hairs on our bodies. Every organ has some kind of neural interface even though we may not be aware of it directly. But if we eat something disagreeable, we get gas, pain, discomfort... and our 'self' registers it. All animals, whether sentient or not, pay attention to their internal 'self'... they have to, or they would die.
         Out higher species minds pay attention to our body function selves all the time. We get emotional, happy, satiated, scared... all more closely related to body function than to consciousness type of thought. Sure, we can have thoughts that effect some body functions, but once triggered the body largely takes over and it is our internal feelings that strongly affect our consciousness.
         We can ignore the body monitoring for a time, but only temporarily. Our thinking requires a functioning body system.
         So what's the problem with AI. Any 'thinking' has to be in a 'brain' of some kind that relies on a massive body substrate. So a computer, witch only has one power cord, doesn't have a body substrate tending to the health and welfare of the thinking part of the computer. There isn't an emotion or a feeling to respond to or influence the thinking.
         The observations we gain from physical (touchy/feely) experience is closer to our unconscious body functions. Like our reactions to closing our eyes when about to be struck in the face. Those reactions are more fundamental to survival than simple book learning. And our species has needed them to survive. Repeated examples of love, kindness, nourishment, and protection when growing up (recalled millions of times) gives us our expectations of humanity.
         Mathematicians dwelling over numbers, rigor, and publishable proofs (for a lifetime) have merged their experiences of reality with their expectations for it to be logical. Maybe reality is fundamentally probabilistic as quantum physics proposes.
         But, I think I'd side with Einstein when he responded to a letter from Max Born in 1926. 'God does not play dice with the Universe.'