Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!psinntp!bbnews!rsvl_ns!ernie!pja1.rsvl.unisys.com!pja1
From: pja1@rsvl.unisys.com
Subject: Re: Why scientists popularize premature speculations?
Sender: news@rsvl.unisys.com (News Admin)
Message-ID: <pja1.36.01631AAA@rsvl.unisys.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 20:28:49 GMT
Distribution: inet
Lines: 30
References: <3bd8s0$1q2@pobox.csc.fi><28NOV199420434185@pavo.concordia.ca><JMC.94Nov301703 <JMC.94Dec3140227@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il>
Nntp-Posting-Host: pja1
Organization: Unisys - Roseville, MN
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev B]

In article <JMC.94Dec3140227@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> jmc@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (McCarthy John) writes:
>Subject: Re: Why scientists popularize premature speculations?
>From: jmc@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (McCarthy John)
>Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 12:02:27 GMT

>I would have regarded Crick's hypothesis - that consciousness is to be
>investigated by the same scientific methods as are applied to every
>other question - as not astonishing.  He writes, with some
>justification, that consciousness is regarded by many (perhaps most)
>people including scientists as not susceptible to ordinary scientific
>investigation.  I can imagine that the books was written as a
>straightforward popularization of Crick's ideas about consciousness
>and that the publisher got him to put a little hype in about applying
>ordinary scientific methods being astonishing.

>Well perhaps making the ideas available to people with an interest
>requires making it attractive to people who will use it mainly as a
>decoration.  I guess that considering it as decorative also applies
>to the editors of book review sections of newspapers and magazines.

Are you suggesting that Crick believes consciousness is not susceptible to 
scientific investigation? Have you read Crick's book? IMHO, in tarring Crick 
and Penrose with the same brush you're undermining your own credibility. I 
don't think Crick's book is all that important, but I believe Crick respects 
the scientific method and is reasonably circumspect.





