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!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!usenet
From: rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
In-Reply-To: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com's message of 18 Oct 1994 21:54:51 GMT
Message-ID: <RJC.94Oct19220238@daiches.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: daiches
Organization: Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh
References: <381g7b$7b5@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 21:02:38 GMT
Lines: 24
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:96914 sci.skeptic:92199 sci.psychology:28177 comp.ai.philosophy:21128 sci.bio:22474 sci.philosophy.meta:14177


In article <381g7b$7b5@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, Jack Sarfatti (js) writes:

js> [Quoting Penrose]

js> ".. for consciousness to arise generally .... some essential 
js> physical action that biology has so cleverly contrived to 
js> incorporate in the activity of its microtubules  ... we need 
js> something that is beyond computational simulation if we are to find 
js> a physical basis for conscious acts

Does he actually provide any arguments for this or is he just assuming
it as he did in the last book? 

js> Sarfatti's comment: Penrose's thesis totally destroy's Tipler's case 
js> for our personal immortality in a future computer simulation of our 
js> souls.  

Richard's Comment: Any fool can propose a thesis which `destroys'
someone elses case, the hard part is proving your thesis.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk			_O_
					 |<
