Claude de Contrecoeur <Cyrano at beehive.twics.com> wrote:
> All this grotesque quantum discussion on consciousness by Penrose,etc,
> has been taken seriously because Penrose is a well-known and good
> mathematician,etc.
> However,as far as consciousness is concerned Penrose is a complete
> IGNORANT and a primitive...
penrose's argument leaves a lot to be desired. the basis of a great deal of
his argument is a priori: he cannot imagine that existing neural
computational mechanisms could explain the substantial variety of
behaviours (including consciousness) in humans, so he puts forward that
these mechanisms *cannot* explain them, but that some finer level of detail
can. this is flawed. perhaps he should spend more time building the
mechanisms rather than just theorising about them; then, perhaps, he might
have a little more respect for what we have accomplished in the last twenty
years.
dog
|dog at dog.net.uk|http://dog.net.uk| cheeky as buggery