We have a saying in science; science advances one funeral at a time. It’s a pithy summation of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. So yes, I know how hard it can be to change people’s minds. Most scientists do.
I partially trained in a psychology department, so I haven’t even started down the path of operationalizing “consciousness”. I note that neither Penrose or Hameroff are trained in the discipline either. So if you think the concept is self evident, it ain’t.
I’m not throwing out the concept, but the evidence is far from overwhelming, and there are strong critiques from people like Christof Koch that can’t simply be dismissed out of hand. I compared it temperature, which can also produce anesthesia and loss of consciousness. But no one would step up and say that consciousness is temperature. Or maybe they would?
note that neither Penrose or Hameroff are trained in the discipline either.
Because it’s a physics problem… At its base level consciousness is a thing that is happening between physical components unless you say it’s Jesus taking the wheel at it’s root it’s a physics problem.
He’s spent literally 40 years of his “retirement” looking into it. He knows far more than us or anyone else on the planet.
Someone will come after him and finish it up, just like him and Hawking finished Einstein’s. That doesn’t mean pretend it doesn’t exist till it’s scientifically proven.
I compared it temperature, which can also produce anesthesia and loss of consciousness. But no one would step up and say that consciousness is temperature
What does that even mean?
That would be the cause not mechanism of action. Like, I get you were trying to make a silly point, but all that did is show you’re not understanding this
I’m sorry, I just don’t think I’m able to explain this in a way you can understand
That’s not how science works. It’s not enough to sound right and tell you what you want and expect to hear. You have to present the most compelling hypothesis and consistently try and fail to disprove it, especially looking at counterarguments by peers as places to seek to disprove it.
At essence the argument for Penrose and Hameroff comes down to the requirement for a non-computational requirement for consciousness. At the time of publication the response was “has Penrose never heard of a heuristic?” Because organisms generally do not solve problems computationally, they ballpark things and fumble around in the problem space for something that looks like an adequate solution.
Without the requirement for the brain to function as a universal Turing machine there is no need to point alternative mechanisms like quantum processes.
I made the point about temperature because there are all kinds of things, at specific doses, affect “consciousness” without disrupting other physiological processes. Anaesthetics are useful, but they aren’t a unique tool to probe conscious experience.
We could go on in this vein with Koch and Crick’s interest in the split sensory processing of the superior and inferior geniculate. One pathway is consciously perceived and the other is not. So a quantum explanation needs to account for dorsal vs ventral pathways. And so on.
Backing the discussion out, it may be correct. But it is far from settled, or even a leading theory in the area.
We have a saying in science; science advances one funeral at a time. It’s a pithy summation of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. So yes, I know how hard it can be to change people’s minds. Most scientists do.
I partially trained in a psychology department, so I haven’t even started down the path of operationalizing “consciousness”. I note that neither Penrose or Hameroff are trained in the discipline either. So if you think the concept is self evident, it ain’t.
I’m not throwing out the concept, but the evidence is far from overwhelming, and there are strong critiques from people like Christof Koch that can’t simply be dismissed out of hand. I compared it temperature, which can also produce anesthesia and loss of consciousness. But no one would step up and say that consciousness is temperature. Or maybe they would?
Because it’s a physics problem… At its base level consciousness is a thing that is happening between physical components unless you say it’s Jesus taking the wheel at it’s root it’s a physics problem.
He’s spent literally 40 years of his “retirement” looking into it. He knows far more than us or anyone else on the planet.
Someone will come after him and finish it up, just like him and Hawking finished Einstein’s. That doesn’t mean pretend it doesn’t exist till it’s scientifically proven.
What does that even mean?
That would be the cause not mechanism of action. Like, I get you were trying to make a silly point, but all that did is show you’re not understanding this
I’m sorry, I just don’t think I’m able to explain this in a way you can understand
That’s not how science works. It’s not enough to sound right and tell you what you want and expect to hear. You have to present the most compelling hypothesis and consistently try and fail to disprove it, especially looking at counterarguments by peers as places to seek to disprove it.
If his peers remain unconvinced so do I
Sorry for delay. Work got in the way.
At essence the argument for Penrose and Hameroff comes down to the requirement for a non-computational requirement for consciousness. At the time of publication the response was “has Penrose never heard of a heuristic?” Because organisms generally do not solve problems computationally, they ballpark things and fumble around in the problem space for something that looks like an adequate solution.
Without the requirement for the brain to function as a universal Turing machine there is no need to point alternative mechanisms like quantum processes.
I made the point about temperature because there are all kinds of things, at specific doses, affect “consciousness” without disrupting other physiological processes. Anaesthetics are useful, but they aren’t a unique tool to probe conscious experience.
We could go on in this vein with Koch and Crick’s interest in the split sensory processing of the superior and inferior geniculate. One pathway is consciously perceived and the other is not. So a quantum explanation needs to account for dorsal vs ventral pathways. And so on.
Backing the discussion out, it may be correct. But it is far from settled, or even a leading theory in the area.