3 ms·
He can still be a great neurosurgeon. Though when he's making statements about the mind and how it could define what 'death' means in a clinical sense, then no
by fossuser 9y ago
He can still be a great neurosurgeon.
Though when he's making statements about the mind and how it could define what 'death' means in a clinical sense, then nonsense like "The music seemed to transcend the spatial limitations of matter" which is contradicted by all existing evidence, reduces my respect for him on that topic and makes me nervous about his scientific/critical thinking in general.
If they can't get that right why would I think they have a good idea about something where there's less evidence that's even more controversial?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- contravariant 9y agoThat particular statement is so vague and subjective that I'm curious what evidence you think contradicts it.
- abritinthebay 9y agoIt's not vague - it's nonsense. Difference.
- fossuser 9y agoI suppose the more relevant quote is: > he no longer thought it possible that all conscious experience, particularly one’s perception of beauty, could be a “mere electrophysiological epiphenomenon,” https://lesswrong.com/lw/or/joy_in_the_merely_real/ https://lesswrong.com/lw/or/joy_in_the_merely_real/ Though for the music one the “transcend spatial limitations of matter” is the part I take issue with. It’s unclear what it even means, but seems to imply some supernatural specialness.