3 ms·
Yes I think this is one way to attack the argument but you have to break the circularity somehow. Many of the dismissals of the Hofstadter/Penrose argument I’v
by derriz 2y ago
Yes I think this is one way to attack the argument but you have to break the circularity somehow. Many of the dismissals of the Hofstadter/Penrose argument I’ve read here, I think, do not appreciate the actual argument.
- davorak 2y agoPenrose is claiming there is new physics which is not computable, but to my knowledge Penrose offers no experimental evidence for it. > 11:43 but new physics of a particular kind what I'm claiming from the girdle argument you see this is the plot which > 11:50 I think has got lost what I claim is saying that the physics that in is > 11:57 involved in conscious thinking has to be non-computable physics now the physics > 12:02 we know there's a little bit of a glitch here because it's not completely clear >12:07 but as far as we can see the physics we know is computable you see uh what about general link for 11:43: https://youtu.be/biUfMZ2dts8?si=Epe3gmfCzwhj_g41 https://youtu.be/biUfMZ2dts8?si=Epe3gmfCzwhj_g41 Without Penrose giving solid evidence people making counter arguments tend to get dismissive then sloppy. Why put in the time to make well tuned arguments filled with evidence when the other side does not bother after all.