3 ms·

It's not an incorrect summary of his position. I agree it may not look like a totally objective characterization on my part, but you're saying this in a discuss

by Udo 9y ago

It's not an incorrect summary of his position. I agree it may not look like a totally objective characterization on my part, but you're saying this in a discussion where I was literally told to "go home", by the same user you're protecting here. If you think my comments in their entirety detracted from the discussion, I'd like you to tell me. Otherwise I'm asking you to consider this statement in the context of both manyoso's and my comments as a whole. This is a discussion about quantum quackery, and you're stepping in on behalf of the pro-quackery side that has no problem telling me personally that I "have no idea what" I'm "talking about", and other dismissive discourse.

manyoso 9y ago
It is incorrect. Penrose emphatically says the human brain is governed by physical law. To assert otherwise is just factually incorrect. Read his books or read his papers. If you disagree, please provide one quote that shows otherwise. I am sorry to have said "go home" and will refrain in the future. Still, you have lodged what I consider factually incorrect assertions about Penrose's argument. When asked for evidence you have provided none.
- Udo 9y ago
  You misunderstand what I'm talking about. What dang criticized me for is a correct summary of your position. Let me elaborate: > "We proposed [...] that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity [...] This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. [...] We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe." ( Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose; Consciousness in the universe; Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 39-78 ) and > "If gravity plays a role in wave function collapse that will pose serious questions for the Church-Turing hypothesis. It might very well make it impossible for non-Quantum computers to accurately model quantum gravity. Penrose does not argue for "something computationally more powerful than objective collapse" rather, he argues that the physical Church-Turing thesis is false due to quantum gravity. Something he is an expert on, btw." ( manyoso, Hacker News, discussion id 14444443 ) None of these statements, while they are using the language of science, bears any discernable relationship to physical reality in a scientific sense. The postulate that any consciousness-related activity of neurons happens in structural elements like microtubules is a collection of unproven hypotheses divorced from both empirical and theoretical experience. The same goes for this preposterous claim about quantum gravity: there is currently no workable theoretical framework for quantum gravity, but this doesn't stop Penrose from confabulating properties onto the term so it can become a new go-to locus for his ideas on quantum consciousness. An observer will notice a pattern here: mystical truth claims about a hypothesis with no basis in either experimentation nor theory are being "supported" by hiding their supposed mechanisms of action inside yet-unexplored regions of the map. It's a god of the gaps argument. Now, you know this, as does Penrose. Both of you are trying to preempt this criticism by professing quantum consciousness is a fundamental part of the laws of nature, and hence it should not be categorized as woo. You are essentially rejecting the accusation of mysticism by asserting that magic is not metaphysical. Which was the observation dang chided (and apparently penalized) me for. For what it's worth: you decisively won the argument, both by popular opinion and the support of the site's admin. Accept a victory when it presents itself.
dang 9y ago
I chided manyoso elsewhere. The problem with your comment was not that it incorrectly summarized anything, it's that it broke the HN guidelines by calling names ("quackery", "sophistry", "woo", "fundamentalist"). That matters far more to HN than whether Penrose is wrong about Gödel. Commenting here requires being scrupulously civil, even when others are not. Any lower standard would lead to an unstable system.
- Udo 9y ago
  In a discussion where one side freely makes stuff up as they go along and attempts to put the burden of proof on everybody else, I stand by these characterizations. When someone asserts in an authoritative tone that quantum gravity is the key to unlocking consciousness at the heart of the universe, that is utter hogwash and deserves to be called out as such. You may personally not like my pointing this out, but the entire "field" of quantum consciousness is a religious movement that makes unsubstantiated claims about the nature of reality. It actually is quackery. Redefining the term 'physical laws' to include magic in order to shield an opinion from criticism is actually sophistry. Insisting that spiritual convictions are factual statements about the universe is actual fundamentalism. These aren't bad words wielded to hurt someone, they are supposed to convey meaning. I never meant to denigrate anyone personally. I strongly feel that opinions must be fair game though when it comes to criticism. In doing so suppose I must come across more harshly than I intended or maybe I'm just exceptionally bad at articulating myself. Whatever my intent, it's clearly not working out all that well. It's probably a good idea for me to take a break from HN for a while.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

by Udo 9y ago

manyoso 9y ago

It is incorrect. Penrose emphatically says the human brain is governed by physical law. To assert otherwise is just factually incorrect. Read his books or read his papers. If you disagree, please provide one quote that shows otherwise. I am sorry to have said "go home" and will refrain in the future. Still, you have lodged what I consider factually incorrect assertions about Penrose's argument. When asked for evidence you have provided none.

Udo 9y ago
You misunderstand what I'm talking about. What dang criticized me for is a correct summary of your position. Let me elaborate: > "We proposed [...] that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ coherent quantum processes in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum processes correlate with, and regulate, neuronal synaptic and membrane activity [...] This orchestrated OR activity (‘Orch OR’) is taken to result in moments of conscious awareness and/or choice. [...] We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe." ( Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose; Consciousness in the universe; Physics of Life Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2014, Pages 39-78 ) and > "If gravity plays a role in wave function collapse that will pose serious questions for the Church-Turing hypothesis. It might very well make it impossible for non-Quantum computers to accurately model quantum gravity. Penrose does not argue for "something computationally more powerful than objective collapse" rather, he argues that the physical Church-Turing thesis is false due to quantum gravity. Something he is an expert on, btw." ( manyoso, Hacker News, discussion id 14444443 ) None of these statements, while they are using the language of science, bears any discernable relationship to physical reality in a scientific sense. The postulate that any consciousness-related activity of neurons happens in structural elements like microtubules is a collection of unproven hypotheses divorced from both empirical and theoretical experience. The same goes for this preposterous claim about quantum gravity: there is currently no workable theoretical framework for quantum gravity, but this doesn't stop Penrose from confabulating properties onto the term so it can become a new go-to locus for his ideas on quantum consciousness. An observer will notice a pattern here: mystical truth claims about a hypothesis with no basis in either experimentation nor theory are being "supported" by hiding their supposed mechanisms of action inside yet-unexplored regions of the map. It's a god of the gaps argument. Now, you know this, as does Penrose. Both of you are trying to preempt this criticism by professing quantum consciousness is a fundamental part of the laws of nature, and hence it should not be categorized as woo. You are essentially rejecting the accusation of mysticism by asserting that magic is not metaphysical. Which was the observation dang chided (and apparently penalized) me for. For what it's worth: you decisively won the argument, both by popular opinion and the support of the site's admin. Accept a victory when it presents itself.

dang 9y ago

I chided manyoso elsewhere. The problem with your comment was not that it incorrectly summarized anything, it's that it broke the HN guidelines by calling names ("quackery", "sophistry", "woo", "fundamentalist"). That matters far more to HN than whether Penrose is wrong about Gödel. Commenting here requires being scrupulously civil, even when others are not. Any lower standard would lead to an unstable system.

Udo 9y ago
In a discussion where one side freely makes stuff up as they go along and attempts to put the burden of proof on everybody else, I stand by these characterizations. When someone asserts in an authoritative tone that quantum gravity is the key to unlocking consciousness at the heart of the universe, that is utter hogwash and deserves to be called out as such. You may personally not like my pointing this out, but the entire "field" of quantum consciousness is a religious movement that makes unsubstantiated claims about the nature of reality. It actually is quackery. Redefining the term 'physical laws' to include magic in order to shield an opinion from criticism is actually sophistry. Insisting that spiritual convictions are factual statements about the universe is actual fundamentalism. These aren't bad words wielded to hurt someone, they are supposed to convey meaning. I never meant to denigrate anyone personally. I strongly feel that opinions must be fair game though when it comes to criticism. In doing so suppose I must come across more harshly than I intended or maybe I'm just exceptionally bad at articulating myself. Whatever my intent, it's clearly not working out all that well. It's probably a good idea for me to take a break from HN for a while.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]