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!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!nac.no!news.kth.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: <1994Oct23.202709.891@ida.liu.se>
Sender: news@ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
References: <38ckm6$bit@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 20:27:09 GMT
Lines: 53
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:97307 sci.skeptic:92713 sci.psychology:28344 comp.ai.philosophy:21263 sci.bio:22584 sci.philosophy.meta:14290

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

>In <CxxCyu.2FB@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes: 

>>
>>In article <381d8h$5tn@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
>>Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>I suggest you read the nitty-gritty physics in Penrose's book. The
>>>Chomskiest approach is mere words without any contact with real experiments
>>>as far as I can see. Penrose's picture of the micotubules is quote beautiful
>>>and empirical. It's a real breakthrough but if you do not have the
>>>relevant background in physics it will escape you. A purely Chomskian
>>>approach is a linguistic delusion brilliant though it may be - it is
>>>still Medieval in its methodology - welcome to the 21st Century.
>>
>>I have a 180-degree opposing view that Penrose's claims are thinly
>>tested speculation, and much of cognitive psychology is based on
>>experimental observations, including linguistics.

>I do not consider linguistics to be "experimental" in the same sense
>that physics is. Linguistics is a high level phenomenology on the function
>of a complex system. We as physicists are interested in the lower level
>"DOS" if you will whereas you are in a highlevel Macromedia Authorware
>Professional for Windows - to make an analogy. We want to know the physical
>substrate of conscious phenomena - precisely how it emerges out of organized
>matter - or, perhaps the other way round in the sense "We are such dreams
>as stuff is made from." Now Penrose, Hameroff and Co are on a very tantalizing
>trail it seems to me. Its got me salivating and tugging at the collar! :-)

Linguistics, philosophy of mind and the other cognitive sciences are,
when properly conducted, experimentally testable. Moreover, they make
interesting predictions at the relevant level of abstraction. Take
Daniel. C. Dennet's "Consciousness explained" as a good example of
this on the philosophy side of things.

If, as you and Penrose seem eager to proclaim to an astonished world,
quantum physics is the single science needed to explain everything,
why not lend a hand to meteorologists? Since you can explain
everything as quantum phenomena, why not the weather? 

The reason is that you work at the wrong level. I do not dispute
your competence at physics (indeed, I cannot even begin to test it),
but that competence does not imply omnipotence or omniscience.
Everything you have written about the *interesting* level (our
conscious experiences) highlight this painfully. That consciousness
is a passive observer in e.g. ordinary conversation, and then magically
becomes an "active" agent in the proper situation is rather
unconvincing. Pray tell, where is the quantum pineal gland located? 
 
--
/--- Ego sum --------\ /------------------------\
! kand. Pontus Gagge  ! c89ponga.und.ida.liu.se !
\---- Enjoyment is an overrated pleasure. ------/
