Materialists......

JustGeoff said:
So he did it for the fame? :D
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't put it that way, but I'd say it comes back to his desire, clearly-stated in dogma (if not in the bible itself, though I don't know it that well) to "be" with mankind. He wants something from us. It's understandable, mind you, but not altruistic.
 
Belz... said:
Well I wouldn't put it that way, but I'd say it comes back to his desire, clearly-stated in dogma (if not in the bible itself, though I don't know it that well) to "be" with mankind. He wants something from us. It's understandable, mind you, but not altruistic.
Click to expand...

Well, with the greatest respect, I don't think we can proceed from here. If you do not think the greatest symbol of altruism in the history of religious symbology qualifies as genuinely altruistic, I have no response. If Jesus wasn't an altruist, there is no altruism.
 
Geoff said:
Have you seen the math in Penrose's "Shadow's of the Mind?" Unless you are a lot better at maths than me, it will be of no use to you whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it would be of any use. I just want to see it, so that I know that an idea is something more than just a Rube Goldberg piggybacked on the interpretation of some complex theory. I believe the jury is still out concerning the soundness of Penrose's arguments in that book.

What we need is a better hypothesis - which is exactly what Penrose is trying to do. Unfortunately, far too many people are angry that he is even trying, because they do not understand his motivations. They react to Penrose in the same way that tbk reacts to me. Yet he is trying to provide precisely what you are asking for, so I presume you approve of the attempt.
Click to expand...
By all means, Penrose should go for it. I'm not sure what it has to do with metaphysics, but that's not my department.

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
I didn't say it would be of any use. I just want to see it, so that I know that an idea is something more than just a Rube Goldberg piggybacked on the interpretation of some complex theory. I believe the jury is still out concerning the soundness of Penrose's arguments in that book.


By all means, Penrose should go for it. I'm not sure what it has to do with metaphysics, but that's not my department.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

It's got plenty to do with metaphysics. His books are about metaphysics, quantum mechanics and neuroscience. He is trying to synthesise a new position which takes all three into account. Nobody has done this before - not to this extent. But instead of supporting him, or even just allowing him to get on with it, some sections of the scientific community want to attack him for being a woo.
 
From a review of "The Emporers New Mind":

"The testament of a brilliant man wrestling desperately--and unashamedly--with the deepest problems of metaphysics" -- (Nature)
 
Geoff said:
It's got plenty to do with metaphysics. His books are about metaphysics, quantum mechanics and neuroscience. He is trying to synthesise a new position which takes all three into account. Nobody has done this before - not to this extent. But instead of supporting him, or even just allowing him to get on with it, some sections of the scientific community want to attack him for being a woo.
Click to expand...
What does it have to do with metaphysics?

Anyway, he can ignore the naysayers and get on with it.

~~Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
What does it have to do with metaphysics?

~~Paul
Click to expand...

He is trying to find a position where the neuroscience, the quantum mechanics and the metaphysics all line up without contradicting each other. He is trying to find a coherent metaphysical position, taking into account both the measurement problem as it appears in his own physical theories as well as what is known about neuroscience. He is exploring the metaphysical framework which would bring all of this together into a single theory.
 
Geoff said:
He is trying to find a position where the neuroscience, the quantum mechanics and the metaphysics all line up without contradicting each other. He is trying to find a coherent metaphysical position, taking into account both the measurement problem as it appears in his own physical theories as well as what is known about neuroscience. He is exploring the metaphysical framework which would bring all of this together into a single theory.
Click to expand...
What metaphysical framework? He is suggesting that some sort of quantum mechanical mechanism must be involved, because he cannot imagine that human thought processes can be algorithmic. The objections to his work center on that very question. It is an interesting question, to be sure, but has nothing to do with metaphysics.

Are you sure you aren't making this a metaphysical issue because you are looking for an "in" for your favorite metaphysic?

~~Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
What metaphysical framework? He is suggesting that some sort of quantum mechanical mechanism must be involved, because he cannot imagine that human thought processes can be algorithmic. The objections to his work center on that very question. It is an interesting question, to be sure, but has nothing to do with metaphysics.
Click to expand...

Paul, have it whichever way you want it. If the questions aren't metaphysical, what makes you think a science magazine would review it by saying it was an attempt to get to grips with the deepest questions of metaphysics?

Have you read the book? If you had, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm telling you it's metaphysics. "Nature" magazine says it metaphysics. You've never read it, but you're not convinced it's metaphysics? :con2:

Are you sure you aren't making this a metaphysical issue because you are looking for an "in" for your favorite metaphysic?

~~Paul
Click to expand...

Right. And you think that's what motivated the reviewer at "Nature", too?

Paul.....it's a book about metaphysics.
 
http://www.friesian.com/penrose.htm

Although Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind does not get us so far down the road philosophically as to apply Kant to things like quantum mechanics, his exploration is so much more serious philosophically than almost anything that has been done since Einstein and Schrödinger that the next steps seem clearly suggested. No more need be asked from any book about science and mathematics.
Click to expand...

Penrose is someone who likes big pictures as well as the fine details. I agree with this review. Not since Schrodinger has anyone attempted something like this. I'd personally throw Bohm and Eddington into the same category as well, but I can't think of many more.
 
Last edited:
Why is it a book about metaphysics? I have not read the book, but nor have I read any reviews or discussion that makes it seem like its about metaphysics. It's about the question of whether machines can reproduce human thought processes. Sounds like mathematics to me.

Are you sure people aren't talking metaphysics just because they think Penrose's microtubule musings might be a way to sneak in something immaterial?

~~Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Why is it a book about metaphysics? I have not read the book, but nor have I read any reviews or discussion that makes it seem like its about metaphysics.
Click to expand...

Follow the link in my previous post. It's a good, concise review.

It's about the question of whether machines can reproduce human thought processes. Sounds like mathematics to me.
Click to expand...

It's that too.

Are you sure people aren't talking metaphysics just because they think Penrose's microtubule musings might be a way to sneak in something immaterial?
Click to expand...

Paul, Penrose is an unrepentant Platonist. He believes in the existence of immaterial things. Numbers, to be precise.

Geoff.
 
Geoff said:
Paul, Penrose is an unrepentant Platonist. He believes in the existence of immaterial things. Numbers, to be precise.
Click to expand...
Ah, because Penrose might believe he's addressing metaphysical questions, he must be doing so. Perhaps.

Sounds like a good book, anyway, so I think I'll read it.

~~Paul
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Also check out the various refutations of Penrose's argument floating about the Internet.

~~Paul
Click to expand...

The head of my COGS department (what's left of it) is going to this years Tucson conference ("Towards a science of consciousness") to present a paper he believes is a knock-down refutation of Penrose. I am aware of the critics. I am also aware of Penrose's motivations and the consequences of this change in the philosophical weather is having for his now-defunct department. Turkey's don't vote for Christmas. If Penrose is right, much of Cognitive Science evaporates.....

Even if Penrose is wrong, he is still heading in the right direction for the future of this sort of study but the wrong direction for classical cognitive science. Computationalism is dead. It needs to be buried because the corpse is beginning to smell.
 
JustGeoff said:
Well, with the greatest respect, I don't think we can proceed from here. If you do not think the greatest symbol of altruism in the history of religious symbology qualifies as genuinely altruistic, I have no response. If Jesus wasn't an altruist, there is no altruism.
Click to expand...

Ah! Then you agree with me. IF he wasn't an altruist, which I'm only saying, in one sense, he wasn't, if you take into account that everything we do is for a personnal reason. Of course, if we dig... er... shallower and simply keep the regular definition, then sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom