5 ms·

No less a scientist than Roger Penrose is (arguably) in that camp: his excellent “The Emperor’s New Mind” is about the paradox of free will in a mechanistic uni

No less a scientist than Roger Penrose is (arguably) in that camp: his excellent “The Emperor’s New Mind” is about the paradox of free will in a mechanistic universe, and the question of where among the laws of physics might consciousness fit. (Spoiler alert: the collapse of the quantum wave function has a different character from all the other laws.)

tasty_freeze 2y ago
That is a rather tenuous thing to base an argument (and a book) on. Quantum wave collapse is not understood at all, to the point there are physicists who deny collapsing even happens.
euroderf 2y ago
Lee Smolin (a physicist) argues that all this talk of determinism (as opposed to free will) has a real impact on people, leading to fatalism and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, and that this has real impact on prospects for public policy responses to the crises we as a species face.
Animats 2y ago
Rudy Rucker points out, in one of his SF books, that free will and random number generators are the same thing.
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> No less a scientist than Roger Penrose This is argument from authority. In Penrose's case, while his position is mildly interesting, most other scientists and philosophers interested in consciousness and mind/brain questions completely reject it.
- adonovan 2y ago
  > This is argument from authority. No, it isn't. An argument from authority would be me claiming that X is true because Penrose says so. The parent poster had said "I guess there are people who still believe the mind is some mystical thing not determined by biology." To which I responded with a data point: a highly respected physicist (indeed, an authority) who professes to be, essentially, a Cartesian dualist. I wasn't even claiming that X is true. HNers do seem to love casually slinging claims of logical fallacies at each other.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    Yes it is. You sought to bolster the mention of Penrose's almost-certainly ridiculous consciousness-is-quantum ideas by starting with an implicit description of his rank as a scientist. Had you started with: "There are a handful (and I do mean a mere handful) of scientists, most of them with no background in either brain or computation science, who think ...." and then later mentioned Penrose, you'd be right. But you chose to lead with his nominal status derived from his life as a talented and (rightfully) celebrated mathematician, thus attempting to improve the otherwise less than marginal status of the quantum-centric view of consciousness with his authority.

tasty_freeze 2y ago

That is a rather tenuous thing to base an argument (and a book) on. Quantum wave collapse is not understood at all, to the point there are physicists who deny collapsing even happens.

euroderf 2y ago

Lee Smolin (a physicist) argues that all this talk of determinism (as opposed to free will) has a real impact on people, leading to fatalism and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, and that this has real impact on prospects for public policy responses to the crises we as a species face.

Animats 2y ago

Rudy Rucker points out, in one of his SF books, that free will and random number generators are the same thing.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

> No less a scientist than Roger Penrose This is argument from authority. In Penrose's case, while his position is mildly interesting, most other scientists and philosophers interested in consciousness and mind/brain questions completely reject it.

adonovan 2y ago
> This is argument from authority. No, it isn't. An argument from authority would be me claiming that X is true because Penrose says so. The parent poster had said "I guess there are people who still believe the mind is some mystical thing not determined by biology." To which I responded with a data point: a highly respected physicist (indeed, an authority) who professes to be, essentially, a Cartesian dualist. I wasn't even claiming that X is true. HNers do seem to love casually slinging claims of logical fallacies at each other.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  Yes it is. You sought to bolster the mention of Penrose's almost-certainly ridiculous consciousness-is-quantum ideas by starting with an implicit description of his rank as a scientist. Had you started with: "There are a handful (and I do mean a mere handful) of scientists, most of them with no background in either brain or computation science, who think ...." and then later mentioned Penrose, you'd be right. But you chose to lead with his nominal status derived from his life as a talented and (rightfully) celebrated mathematician, thus attempting to improve the otherwise less than marginal status of the quantum-centric view of consciousness with his authority.