I'm with you regarding opinion on consciousness, but do you think it would be 'better' if there were no dualists and no dualist essays and ideas?
Because I hardly think so.
This is not like alternative medicine where there is harm for people who don't follow the mainstream. And I stress again that Penrose (in the interviews I saw) doesn't actually claim that he absolutely has to be right.
do you think it would be 'better' if there were no dualists and no dualist essays and ideas?
No of course not, people should be free to discuss and believe in dualism. What I find regrettable, is how often Penrose's name is invoked in an appeal to authority, as if his past (and very valuable) contributions to physics were enough to make him right on everything, including this subject.
Ultimately, I believe dualism is wrong, and I believe I have good reasons to think so. My previous comment was simply my attempt at deconstructing Penrose's argument, participating in the ever-ongoing popular debate.
My previous comment was simply my attempt at deconstructing Penrose's argument, participating in the ever-ongoing popular debate.
That may be so, but just the mention of Penrose's name in the context of something else caused you to start a whole subthread that had nothing to do with the subject.
Comments
I'm with you regarding opinion on consciousness, but do you think it would be 'better' if there were no dualists and no dualist essays and ideas?
Because I hardly think so.
This is not like alternative medicine where there is harm for people who don't follow the mainstream. And I stress again that Penrose (in the interviews I saw) doesn't actually claim that he absolutely has to be right.
No of course not, people should be free to discuss and believe in dualism. What I find regrettable, is how often Penrose's name is invoked in an appeal to authority, as if his past (and very valuable) contributions to physics were enough to make him right on everything, including this subject.
Ultimately, I believe dualism is wrong, and I believe I have good reasons to think so. My previous comment was simply my attempt at deconstructing Penrose's argument, participating in the ever-ongoing popular debate.
That may be so, but just the mention of Penrose's name in the context of something else caused you to start a whole subthread that had nothing to do with the subject.
It was not "just the mention of Penrose's name", it was this comment specifically:
Is something wrong with my original comment?
Fair enough, I can see that.