4 ms·

There is no consensus amongst philosophers on consciousness, and if there is, it isn’t IIT. I don’t know about cogsci people though.

graphe 3y ago
It was a consensus of the people I talked to orch OR isn't taken seriously, and IIT is. I only hear of orch OR from people who watched the video online and heard of the great toilet paper maker rodger Penrose.
- heckraiser 3y ago
  Why sniping Penrose? Some scandal for which I am not aware? His explanations of manifold contours was an epiphany of enlightenment for me.
  - graphe 3y ago
    Sorry, it's just what people remember about him for some reason. That hes a Nobel prize winner who must be right about consciousness, sued a toilet paper company and won. Hard for the laymen to speak of his scientific work.
  - eynsham 3y ago
    Penrose’s excursion into logic and philosophy by way of Gödel is nearly universally rejected in my experience and according to the standard reference work: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#GdeArgAgaMec https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#Gd...
    - heckraiser 3y ago
      I would disagree on one hand as mechanisms can and shall inevitably outperform human thought capacity at some scale. And agree on another, the human mind is an efficient quantum computer (I know …) which uses constructive and destructive interference for some holographic rendering rather than a composition of linear conditional logic. Do not let the confines of human ignorance set the horizon for Truth! Allow that science is only a tool for undeceiving ourselves. Universal rejection sounds like dogma, not science.
- heckraiser 3y ago
  Orchestrated Objective Reduction is a terrible name for it.
- eynsham 3y ago
  Philosophers take plenty of non-consensus positions seriously.
pointlessone 3y ago
Are philosophers the most qualified to answer the question? To me it sounds like “there’s no consensus amongst botanists on P=NP”. I’d expect biologists/psychologists to have the most experience with the subject matter. And if we’re talking about quantum theory then maybe add some physicists.
- eynsham 3y ago
  There is no substantial botanical literature on whether P=NP, and the early literature on it is hardly botanical in nature. There is a very substantial literature in philosophy of mind on consciousness, and many within the field are up to date on modern cogsci and psychology. Indeed, cogsci and philosophy quite fruitfully interact—as far as I can tell, with similar closeness to that of semantic theorists in linguistics and in philosophy. There are also philosophers of physics who are perfectly up to date with modern physics and quantum theory. I have not met any philosophers who were clearly up to date both with physics and psychology to the same level, but I expect some philosophers of physics have gone into philosophy of mind. Considerations at the level of your comment therefore point to taking philosophical work on consciousness seriously, which is not to say that the plurality view, so far as there is one, is correct.

graphe 3y ago

It was a consensus of the people I talked to orch OR isn't taken seriously, and IIT is. I only hear of orch OR from people who watched the video online and heard of the great toilet paper maker rodger Penrose.

heckraiser 3y ago
Why sniping Penrose? Some scandal for which I am not aware? His explanations of manifold contours was an epiphany of enlightenment for me.
- graphe 3y ago
  Sorry, it's just what people remember about him for some reason. That hes a Nobel prize winner who must be right about consciousness, sued a toilet paper company and won. Hard for the laymen to speak of his scientific work.
- eynsham 3y ago
  Penrose’s excursion into logic and philosophy by way of Gödel is nearly universally rejected in my experience and according to the standard reference work: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#GdeArgAgaMec https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#Gd...
  - heckraiser 3y ago
    I would disagree on one hand as mechanisms can and shall inevitably outperform human thought capacity at some scale. And agree on another, the human mind is an efficient quantum computer (I know …) which uses constructive and destructive interference for some holographic rendering rather than a composition of linear conditional logic. Do not let the confines of human ignorance set the horizon for Truth! Allow that science is only a tool for undeceiving ourselves. Universal rejection sounds like dogma, not science.
heckraiser 3y ago
Orchestrated Objective Reduction is a terrible name for it.
eynsham 3y ago
Philosophers take plenty of non-consensus positions seriously.

pointlessone 3y ago

Are philosophers the most qualified to answer the question? To me it sounds like “there’s no consensus amongst botanists on P=NP”. I’d expect biologists/psychologists to have the most experience with the subject matter. And if we’re talking about quantum theory then maybe add some physicists.

eynsham 3y ago
There is no substantial botanical literature on whether P=NP, and the early literature on it is hardly botanical in nature. There is a very substantial literature in philosophy of mind on consciousness, and many within the field are up to date on modern cogsci and psychology. Indeed, cogsci and philosophy quite fruitfully interact—as far as I can tell, with similar closeness to that of semantic theorists in linguistics and in philosophy. There are also philosophers of physics who are perfectly up to date with modern physics and quantum theory. I have not met any philosophers who were clearly up to date both with physics and psychology to the same level, but I expect some philosophers of physics have gone into philosophy of mind. Considerations at the level of your comment therefore point to taking philosophical work on consciousness seriously, which is not to say that the plurality view, so far as there is one, is correct.