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!uknet!festival!ainews!aisb!andrewt
From: andrewt@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Andrew Tuson)
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
Message-ID: <Cy4qxr.Hqz@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Network News Administrator)
Reply-To: andrewt@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Andrew Tuson)
Organization: Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References:  <38958a$m5b@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 14:29:51 GMT
Lines: 65
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:97280 sci.skeptic:92696 sci.psychology:28330 comp.ai.philosophy:21254 sci.bio:22572 sci.philosophy.meta:14281

In article <38958a$m5b@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
# In <Cy0p25.4BJ@aisb.ed.ac.uk> andrewt@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Andrew Tuson) writes:

# >The biology community should also be concerned about the thrust of Penrose's
# >arguments. It seems to me to be one of those (doomed) attempts by physicists
# >to explain biology (in this case neuroscience) in terms of whichever
# >theory is currently in fashion!
# >
# >Seems to be a case of if you can't explain it, quantum it!..:-)
#
# Andrew, have you given Penrose's book a careful reading yet? I would
# bet no.

Partly wrong; I've read his last book - I was not that impressed by it, but as
I'm a poor student I haven't yet read his new book.

# I would also bet you change your tune once you do. If I am
# wrong and you have read the book carefully then please list your specific
# objections. I suggest we all be academically professional in regard to
# Penrose's important claims and that we use this internet world wide forum
# with the same professional standards that I am sure you use in the class
# room.

It may help in this discussion to note where each person is coming
from. Penrose is a mathematician/physicist, I am an (ex) chemist doing an AI
MSc, with some informal training in biology. Personally, I feel that looking
at biological systems is the key to unlocking the workings of the mind.

My main objection to Penrose's view is that it is far too reductionist.

I could go into details but I really do not want to be drawn into a long
argument as I simply do not have the time to do it properly....

# Certainly we have a worthy cross-disciplinary topic of great interest
# and Penrose is an Oxford Professor, a Fellow of the Royal Society, winner
# of the Wolf Prize and the book is published by Oxford - so I think it is
# in good taste that we give his views some respect and discuss them at
# the highest level of integrity that we can muster smothering future flames
# from the philistines by simply ignoring them. 

My message was not intended as a flame!

All I was pointing out is that there have been occassions in the past where
physicists have applied their theories inappropiately to biological problems.

I suspect that Penrose's views will be found to be in this category.

As for Penrose being an Oxford Professor - being smart/academically successful
does not make you immune from being wrong! Especially in the study of mind
where there is little indication of which approach will eventually provide
the answer...

I'll stick to my hunch; Penrose can stick to his...:-)

# Let's take this opportunity to raise the level of communication on 
# internet and actualize its full potential as a learning tool. 
# This is an appeal not only to you personally.

Fair enougth.....

Andrew Tuson (andrewt@aisb.ed.ac.uk)
Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, UK.
My views are not those of the department.


