Re: Penrose's nonsense
- From: alfps@xxxxxxxx (Alf P. Steinbach)
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 03:56:56 +0000 (UTC)
* Ralph Hartley:
>
> (1) Penrose's argument that quantum theory has important things to tell
> us about the mind is nonsense.
>
> (2) Making nonsense believable and respectable is *not* a good thing.
>
> (3) It would be a bad thing even *if* the conclusion were correct (which
> is very unlikely in this case). An invalid argument for a true
> proposition is still an invalid argument.
I agree with all three points, except the use of the word "unlikely", which
IMO is too categorical and unfounded.
> Nowadays there is debate about the practicality of building
> computational devices that exploit quantum effects. Maybe we can,
> maybe we can't. What is *quite* clear is that the human brain is
> *not* such a device. Nothing that is composed almost entirely of
> liquid water ever can be.
That argument doesn't seem to hold water.
The flaws in Penrose's arguments do not mean that quantum effects do
not have importance for the functioning of a biological brain. There is
much that is not well-understood even at the physics level. E.g., as I
recall (and this is from Penrose... :-)), how a noble gas such as Xenon --
a chemically non-reactive gas -- can work effectively as an analgesic.
In the face of that kind of unmapped territory I don't think one should
be too categorical in stating what could possibly be in that territory.
Or not.
In short, it seems to me that you're committing the same kind of error as
Penrose did: "X must be true or false because that's what I feel".
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
.
- References:
- Books to read for intuition rather than precision.
- From: himog
- Re: Books to read for intuition rather than precision.
- From: bjflanagan
- Penrose's nonsense
- From: Ralph Hartley
- Books to read for intuition rather than precision.
- Prev by Date: Re: A question of discrete space-time.
- Next by Date: Classical Explanation of Stern-Gerlach Experiment
- Previous by thread: Re: Penrose's nonsense
- Next by thread: Re: Books to read for intuition rather than precision.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|