Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,sci.psychology,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.science
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!umdac!fizban.solace.mh.se!news.ifm.liu.se!liuida!c89ponga
From: c89ponga@ida.liu.se (kand. Pontus Gagge)
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
Message-ID: <1994Oct19.170234.2462@ida.liu.se>
Sender: news@ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
References: <3811pl$e6@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 17:02:34 GMT
Lines: 38
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:96890 sci.skeptic:92161 sci.psychology:28163 comp.ai.philosophy:21117 sci.bio:22460 sci.philosophy.meta:14171

sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>In <JMC.94Oct18150624@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> jmc@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (McCarthy John) writes: 

>>
>>I see nothing in mind that requires more than classical physics.
>>Indeed it can all be done with ordinary computer programs.  Penrose's
>>arguments to the contrary in his _The Emperor's New Mind_ are
>>fallacious and ignorant of the entire artificial intelligence
>>technical literature.  Not one of his more than 200 references is to
>>that literature.  I would be surprised if he has read any AI for his
>>second book.
>>

>What is the "crackpot index" of the above?

What on earth is a "crackpot index"?

Ad hominem attacks is certainly one way of attempting to disparage
those who hold different views. It is not exactly good rational
debate. Ignoring an entire area of research about the nature of our
minds in a book about minds seems to be, shall we say, slightly 
rash. If he ignores them, he probably cannot refute them.

I might read Penrose some day, in order to raise my adrenalin
level. However, his whole outlook seems to be "of course the mind
is non-mechanical -- let's find some strange quantum-mechanical
phenomena to muddy the waters". Not the strongest of positions.

Please name some falsifiable predictions about the nature of 
consciousness this "theory" makes. Not an endless welter of
technical details.

(This entire thread seems rather excessively cross-posted, BTW.)
--
/--- Ego sum --------\ /------------------------\
! kand. Pontus Gagge  ! c89ponga.und.ida.liu.se !
\---- Enjoyment is an overrated pleasure. ------/
