RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 17, 2014 at 5:30 am
(May 17, 2014 at 2:57 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I read their brief summary of the theory as part of a wider range of contributions in the excellent book "Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem" by Johnathan Shear. I don't reject Orch-OR because honestly, I just don't understand it really. And while Penrose is unquestionably a brilliant physicist, I have my doubts about Hameroff. I don't like that he seems overly enthusiastic about pushing his theory into almost cultist, unscientific territory, such as that of "quantum healing," which I don't think offers any validation to his ideas and somewhat discredits him (in my mind).
Yes, it's impossible to appraise that stuff without profound knowledge of QM and neurophysiology. I am not a physicist nor a neuro- physiologist, and all that molecular stuff in particular goes over my head, and the physical ideas I can understand only on a superficial level. My "real" knowledge is limited to the basics of QM and the philosophical ideas behind the various interpretations. So, I have no idea how valid the Penrosean interpretion is; but as he has worked with guys like Stephen Hawkins and as his model is considered respectable by mainstream physicists, it would be a folly to claim it makes no sense. I also share your doubts about Hamerhoff. Obviously he is what is called "an enthusiast". But flirting with new age can only tell that he is only a curious and open-minded person who can perfectly well distinguish hypothesis from fact. It's hard to tell. In any case, even if is a newager, his theory can still be valid. Just think W. Pauli. It's not too uncommon that excellent scientists are "enthusiasts"; actually the aggressively "naturalist" types are seldom on the top of their fields.
