Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931), is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science.

Not a biologist, not a neurologist...
Maybe you are aware that, if you have some ailment and go to a doctor, you have several outcomes:
- If you go to an endocrinologist, you have some problem with your hormones.
- If you go to an orthopedic doctor, you have something wrong with your bones.
- If you go to a cardiologist, you have something wrong with your heart.
- If you go to a dermatologist, you have something wrong with your skin
- and so on and so on...

This Penrose fellow is a mathematical physicist, so deals mostly with theoretical physics and quantum is everywhere for him... So it makes sense that he'd come up with something involving his field of work... or else he'd just shut up.
He's biased.
His notion of computer processing on the algorithmic level does not correlate with the kind of processing done on a neurological brain. He strawmans the brain with that algorithmic processing and then claims it can't be like that... well whoopedidah!

Except for the fact that his coauthor, Stuart Hammerhoff, does have the required medical credentials and their most recent 2014 experiments have shown some support for their theory. You might also look into Henry Stapp's work as well. ORarc isn't the only game in town. You guys talk big about science but when it comes to mind-brain Issues you look to 19th century physics for answers.

[Mudhammam]

Not a biologist, not a neurologist...
Maybe you are aware that, if you have some ailment and go to a doctor, you have several outcomes:
- If you go to an endocrinologist, you have some problem with your hormones.
- If you go to an orthopedic doctor, you have something wrong with your bones.
- If you go to a cardiologist, you have something wrong with your heart.
- If you go to a dermatologist, you have something wrong with your skin
- and so on and so on...

This Penrose fellow is a mathematical physicist, so deals mostly with theoretical physics and quantum is everywhere for him... So it makes sense that he'd come up with something involving his field of work... or else he'd just shut up.
He's biased.
His notion of computer processing on the algorithmic level does not correlate with the kind of processing done on a neurological brain. He strawmans the brain with that algorithmic processing and then claims it can't be like that... well whoopedidah!

Except for the fact that his coauthor, Stuart Hammerhoff, does have the required medical credentials and their most recent 2014 experiments have shown some support for their theory. You might also look into Henry Stapp's work as well. ORarc isn't the only game in town. You guys talk big about science but when it comes to mind-brain Issues you look to 19th century physics for answers.

Chad, do you have a link to the experimental results that doesn't directly cite Hameroff and Penrose? I couldn't find one when I first heard about it a few months ago and I found that a bit strange. It seemed to me to suggest that the article was colored to their interpretation rather than just presenting the facts.

[Hegel]

[pocaracas]

[Neo-Scholastic]

[Chas]

[bennyboy]

You call me dogmatic, WooWooters? Irony.

I require evidence of and a plausible mechanism for a claim. There is no plausible mechanism for dualism, nor evidence of it.

All of the evidence from neuroscience is for consciousness to be brain-based.

Waving at the brain isn't showing a "mechanism." So far, science has done exactly zero in determining how material structures or interactions cause things to actually experience qualia, rather than just seeming to.

The evidence for dualism is that there is mind, and the objects which a mind perceives and thinks about. You can insist that the mind supervenes on the brain-- certainly, the content of ideas and thoughts seems to do so. But not only can we not show a mechanism for the supervenience of consciousness on the brain, we can't even show why it would be that a physical structure which can input and process information and produce a behavioral output would cause/need actual subjective awareness.

[Cato]

The evidence for dualism is that there is mind, and the objects which a mind perceives and thinks about. You can insist that the mind supervenes on the brain-- certainly, the content of ideas and thoughts seems to do so. But not only can we not show a mechanism for the supervenience of consciousness on the brain, we can't even show why it would be that a physical structure which can input and process information and produce a behavioral output would cause/need actual subjective awareness.

The evidence you cite is for the mind in general and not particular to dualism. You are right to be critical of the lack of demonstrated mechanism for the monist position, but dualism has the same problem with the added burden of location issues and the effect of physical trauma on the mind.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The evidence for dualism is that there is mind, and the objects which a mind perceives and thinks about. You can insist that the mind supervenes on the brain-- certainly, the content of ideas and thoughts seems to do so. But not only can we not show a mechanism for the supervenience of consciousness on the brain, we can't even show why it would be that a physical structure which can input and process information and produce a behavioral output would cause/need actual subjective awareness.

The evidence you cite is for the mind in general and not particular to dualism. You are right to be critical of the lack of demonstrated mechanism for the monist position, but dualism has the same problem with the added burden of location issues and the effect of physical trauma on the mind.

And the additional burden for monism is explaining why some neural systems are associated with consciousness and others are not. There is clearly an additional process beyond just neural activity.

[Mudhammam]

You call me dogmatic, WooWooters? Irony.

I require evidence of and a plausible mechanism for a claim. There is no plausible mechanism for dualism, nor evidence of it.

All of the evidence from neuroscience is for consciousness to be brain-based.

Waving at the brain isn't showing a "mechanism." So far, science has done exactly zero in determining how material structures or interactions cause things to actually experience qualia, rather than just seeming to.

The evidence for dualism is that there is mind, and the objects which a mind perceives and thinks about. You can insist that the mind supervenes on the brain-- certainly, the content of ideas and thoughts seems to do so. But not only can we not show a mechanism for the supervenience of consciousness on the brain, we can't even show why it would be that a physical structure which can input and process information and produce a behavioral output would cause/need actual subjective awareness.

When Siri version 2050 arrives with actual subjective awareness, will the monism/dualism debate be over?