3 ms·
Funny that two rebuttals against the argument in the article are: 1. Attacking the source (Discovery Institute) 2. "I remain unconvinced" when you can't attac
by cscurmudgeon 4y ago
Funny that two rebuttals against the argument in the article are:
1. Attacking the source (Discovery Institute)
2. "I remain unconvinced" when you can't attack the source (freaking Roger Penrose, lol)
> I’m not sure exactly what Penrose was on to in that book, honestly.
It is quite clear: he distinguishes between Turing computation (which non Quantum physics captures well) and super-Turing computation (which needs the mechanism in ORCH-OR).
I am not saying Penrose is correct but let us not resort to logical fallacies and straw men. It is exhausting.
- rbanffy 4y ago> freaking Roger Penrose Unless he is an expert on cognition or neurobiology, which he isn’t, I still think his opinion has no more value than mine and certainly has less value than that of a field expert. And you did resort to a logical fallacy in that.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago> And you did resort to a logical fallacy in that. False. You should read my comment again or at least a few more times to understand the (relatively simple) point I was trying to make. I was saying you couldn't employ ad hominem against Penrose because it was not easy for you to do so.