4 ms·

If a Nobel laureate says they have an interesting hypothesis that they’d like test and that idea isn’t obviously impossible, it’s probably best not to dismiss i

If a Nobel laureate says they have an interesting hypothesis that they’d like test and that idea isn’t obviously impossible, it’s probably best not to dismiss it as crank science. Walter Alvarez is another Nobel laureate who proposed a theory that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. Many people thought that was crank science. And it’s important to note he had another out there idea that there were hidden chambers in the pyramids of Egypt. That one turned out to be wrong. What distinguished his theories from crank science is that he was open to the idea that they were wrong and was interested in actually using the scientific method to investigate them.

Apocryphon 1y ago
Maybe it is, Nobel prize winners might be so hyper-specialized in their field that they have superficial at best understandings of others. Engineer’s Disease writ large.
- sarchertech 1y ago
  He’s been writing on consciousness for 40 years now and he’s been studying the topic since undergrad. Also most of what he talks about is soundly within his field. The only thing that’s really not is the microtuble thing and he collaborated with someone else on that. That’s also the least interesting thing he says I think because he admits it’s just an interesting place to look for quantum effects and he has no idea if he’s right.
  - jibal 1y ago
    Nothing that Penrose has talked about in re consciousness is "soundly within his field" other than "the microtubule thing" and his collaborator, anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, is a crank among cranks. Also, Penrose has not been "studying the topic since undergrad" ... he's been bothered by the notion that he is "just a computer" since then, but he didn't get into seriously addressing it until much later, and he's never studied it--he notoriously ignores the entirety of the literature of philosophy of mind and neuroscience. > That’s also the least interesting thing he says I think because he admits it’s just an interesting place to look for quantum effects and he has no idea if he’s right. This is simply not accurate. And the fact is that Penrose is completely irrelevant to the subject of consciousness other than via an argument from invalid authority. P.S. The response is disingenuous and discrediting ... I won't respond to that person again, especially after seeing this comment: "I’m in the Penrose camp that Turing machines can’t be conscious which is required for true AGI" --- this is pure ideology. TMs are clearly adequate for AGI even if somehow "TMs can't be conscious" ... c.f. Chalmers' philosophical zombies.
    - sarchertech 1y ago
      None of this is accurate. P.S. this response was merely a condensed version of he response to my reply. Here’s a longer one. >Nothing that Penrose has talked about in re consciousness is "soundly within his field" Quantum gravity, physics, and mathematical logic are clearly within his field. He’s a physicist, mathematician, and logician >Also, Penrose has not been "studying the topic since undergrad" .. He says that he has. >he notoriously ignores the entirety of the literature of philosophy of mind and neuroscience. Disagreement with some members of a field isn’t the same as ignoring it. >This is simply not accurate. It is. I heard it from the horses mouth. >And the fact is that Penrose is completely irrelevant to the subject of consciousness other than via an argument from invalid authority. It’s a field that has never produced anything concrete or beneficial to anyone outside the field. I’m unsure what relevance even means there. >P.S. The response is disingenuous and discrediting ... I won't respond to that person again, Yet you did. I saw your edit. >Clearly TMs can be conscious I guess that’s that then.
      - Retric 1y ago
        > He’s a physicist, mathematician, and logician You just placed biology and neuroscience firmly outside of his wheelhouse. Just the size of the structures involved, temperature, timescales, and distance between neurons alone is a serious problem with his theory here. If he is approaching things from a purely hypothetical standpoint it’s an unlikely but reasonable idea, but it utterly fails as part of how a larger system we actually understand quite a bit about works. Which is always the hard part of science, you’re not just fitting a single curve but thousands of different datasets.
        sarchertech 1y ago
        >You just placed biology and neuroscience firmly outside of his wheelhouse. For biology he had a collaborator. You aren’t likely to find many biologist / quantum physicists. The term neuroscience wasn’t even coined until after he finished his PhD. You could probably name many other relevant sub specialties that doesn’t have formal training in. If any of his theories are correct, you wouldn’t expect a neuroscientist, or biologist to be equipped to come up with them. >If he is approaching things from a purely hypothetical standpoint it’s an unlikely but reasonable idea He is. His first book essentially had no proposed mechanism. Then an anesthesiologist and researcher read it and contacted him with the proposal that microtubules might provide an environment that is insulated from the normal warm, wet, and noisy environment of the brain. His next book investigated that idea, but he’s repeatedly said that this is just an interesting place to investigate and he has no idea whether it’s true. >but it utterly fails as part of how a larger system we actually understand quite a bit about works. How does it fail? I’ve read quite a hit about it and plenty for people are skeptical but I’ve never seen anyone showing how it “utterly fails”.
Retric 1y ago
> it’s probably best not to dismiss it as crank science Why? There’s a lot of Nobel laureates over time who collectively made many such claims, so you can easily pick examples in both directions. My point is more such ideas aren’t accurate enough for anything beyond preliminary testing by actual scientific investigation which sometimes does validate them but also commonly disproves them. There’s zero reason for the average person to consider their validity. Your example is a perfect demonstration of why most people ignoring such things is a good idea, these things don’t simply disappear without investigation.
- sarchertech 1y ago
  I mean sure you shouldn’t go out and by vitamin C supplements because a Nobel Prize winning chemists tell you to. But you also shouldn’t go around immediately dismissing any theories they have as crank science.
  - Retric 1y ago
    Ok if you believe that way what exactly do you gain by doing so? Paying attention has a cost so what’s the payoff?
    - sarchertech 1y ago
      Who says you have to believe it or pay attention to it? What does an average person gain by paying attention to unproven theories in any discipline. If it interests you, pay attention, if it doesn’t, don’t. I just said you shouldn’t dismiss it as crank science.
      - Retric 1y ago
        Ahh, I was agreeing with ignoring it / dismissal not the label.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - 1y ago

Apocryphon 1y ago

Maybe it is, Nobel prize winners might be so hyper-specialized in their field that they have superficial at best understandings of others. Engineer’s Disease writ large.

sarchertech 1y ago
He’s been writing on consciousness for 40 years now and he’s been studying the topic since undergrad. Also most of what he talks about is soundly within his field. The only thing that’s really not is the microtuble thing and he collaborated with someone else on that. That’s also the least interesting thing he says I think because he admits it’s just an interesting place to look for quantum effects and he has no idea if he’s right.
- jibal 1y ago
  Nothing that Penrose has talked about in re consciousness is "soundly within his field" other than "the microtubule thing" and his collaborator, anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff, is a crank among cranks. Also, Penrose has not been "studying the topic since undergrad" ... he's been bothered by the notion that he is "just a computer" since then, but he didn't get into seriously addressing it until much later, and he's never studied it--he notoriously ignores the entirety of the literature of philosophy of mind and neuroscience. > That’s also the least interesting thing he says I think because he admits it’s just an interesting place to look for quantum effects and he has no idea if he’s right. This is simply not accurate. And the fact is that Penrose is completely irrelevant to the subject of consciousness other than via an argument from invalid authority. P.S. The response is disingenuous and discrediting ... I won't respond to that person again, especially after seeing this comment: "I’m in the Penrose camp that Turing machines can’t be conscious which is required for true AGI" --- this is pure ideology. TMs are clearly adequate for AGI even if somehow "TMs can't be conscious" ... c.f. Chalmers' philosophical zombies.
  - sarchertech 1y ago
    None of this is accurate. P.S. this response was merely a condensed version of he response to my reply. Here’s a longer one. >Nothing that Penrose has talked about in re consciousness is "soundly within his field" Quantum gravity, physics, and mathematical logic are clearly within his field. He’s a physicist, mathematician, and logician >Also, Penrose has not been "studying the topic since undergrad" .. He says that he has. >he notoriously ignores the entirety of the literature of philosophy of mind and neuroscience. Disagreement with some members of a field isn’t the same as ignoring it. >This is simply not accurate. It is. I heard it from the horses mouth. >And the fact is that Penrose is completely irrelevant to the subject of consciousness other than via an argument from invalid authority. It’s a field that has never produced anything concrete or beneficial to anyone outside the field. I’m unsure what relevance even means there. >P.S. The response is disingenuous and discrediting ... I won't respond to that person again, Yet you did. I saw your edit. >Clearly TMs can be conscious I guess that’s that then.
    - Retric 1y ago
      > He’s a physicist, mathematician, and logician You just placed biology and neuroscience firmly outside of his wheelhouse. Just the size of the structures involved, temperature, timescales, and distance between neurons alone is a serious problem with his theory here. If he is approaching things from a purely hypothetical standpoint it’s an unlikely but reasonable idea, but it utterly fails as part of how a larger system we actually understand quite a bit about works. Which is always the hard part of science, you’re not just fitting a single curve but thousands of different datasets.
      - sarchertech 1y ago
        >You just placed biology and neuroscience firmly outside of his wheelhouse. For biology he had a collaborator. You aren’t likely to find many biologist / quantum physicists. The term neuroscience wasn’t even coined until after he finished his PhD. You could probably name many other relevant sub specialties that doesn’t have formal training in. If any of his theories are correct, you wouldn’t expect a neuroscientist, or biologist to be equipped to come up with them. >If he is approaching things from a purely hypothetical standpoint it’s an unlikely but reasonable idea He is. His first book essentially had no proposed mechanism. Then an anesthesiologist and researcher read it and contacted him with the proposal that microtubules might provide an environment that is insulated from the normal warm, wet, and noisy environment of the brain. His next book investigated that idea, but he’s repeatedly said that this is just an interesting place to investigate and he has no idea whether it’s true. >but it utterly fails as part of how a larger system we actually understand quite a bit about works. How does it fail? I’ve read quite a hit about it and plenty for people are skeptical but I’ve never seen anyone showing how it “utterly fails”.

Retric 1y ago

> it’s probably best not to dismiss it as crank science Why? There’s a lot of Nobel laureates over time who collectively made many such claims, so you can easily pick examples in both directions. My point is more such ideas aren’t accurate enough for anything beyond preliminary testing by actual scientific investigation which sometimes does validate them but also commonly disproves them. There’s zero reason for the average person to consider their validity. Your example is a perfect demonstration of why most people ignoring such things is a good idea, these things don’t simply disappear without investigation.

sarchertech 1y ago
I mean sure you shouldn’t go out and by vitamin C supplements because a Nobel Prize winning chemists tell you to. But you also shouldn’t go around immediately dismissing any theories they have as crank science.
- Retric 1y ago
  Ok if you believe that way what exactly do you gain by doing so? Paying attention has a cost so what’s the payoff?
  - sarchertech 1y ago
    Who says you have to believe it or pay attention to it? What does an average person gain by paying attention to unproven theories in any discipline. If it interests you, pay attention, if it doesn’t, don’t. I just said you shouldn’t dismiss it as crank science.
    - Retric 1y ago
      Ahh, I was agreeing with ignoring it / dismissal not the label.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- 1y ago