The idea itself is easy to debunk. — apokrisis

So go ahead and do so.

My particular reason for calling Hameroff a charlatan was the transparency with which when he saw I wasn’t buying his quantum coherence in microtubules story, he then switched to his earlier speculative theory about microtubules as cellular automata computers of consciousness. — apokrisis

So, you have a personal or professional association with him?
You would need to offer more details or risk the label 'crank dissenter,' or 'disgruntled dissenter' because he didn't answer your email in the way you wanted him to, or a scenario like that?

I agree that the general neuroscience community and the current main forces in the quantum physics community have not offered much support of the Hameroff and Penrose proposals, on the workings of human consciousness but most of the dissention I have read about so far is just broad based, off hand dismissal with counter scientific points being made. The main dissentions seem based on claims like 'that's unlikely and here's why,' but nothing that convincingly proves Hameroff and Penrose wrong.

Is there any reason for monism rather than dualism/pluralism? — Agent Smith

Descartes proposed Substance Dualism as an alternative to the monism of Materialism, which denied that Mind was immaterial (spiritual). But e pluribus unum (plurality is fundamental) versus e unum pluribus (unity is essential), is an ancient unresolved philosophical argument, dating back to the Greeks. For example, Atomism was both pluralistic and monistic, depending on how you frame the situation. If the atom is defined as having no smaller parts, it is locally monistic. But, if an indivisible atom is just one of a multitude of elementary objects, it is globally pluralistic. Apparently, the reason for making such fine distinctions is to give us something to argue about. :smile:

Descartes proposed Substance Dualism as an alternative to the monism of Materialism, which denied that Mind was immaterial (spiritual). But e pluribus unum (plurality is fundamental) versus e unum pluribus (unity is essential), is an ancient unresolved philosophical argument, dating back to the Greeks. For example, Atomism was both pluralistic and monistic, depending on how you frame the situation. If the atom is defined as having no smaller parts, it is locally monistic. But, if an indivisible atom is just one of a multitude of elementary objects, it is globally pluralistic. Apparently, the reason for making such fine distinctions is to give us something to argue about. — Gnomon

Yeah, just "something to argue about". Reminds of those how-to-keep-an-idiot-busy jokes.

On a more serious note, monism can be justified if we, Daniel Dennett style, say that the other offending opposite is an illusion. So declare the mind is an illusion and we have materialism; on the other hand, if we state that matter is an illusion, we have idealism. The other option is to assert the official positions of these two antithetical ideas i.e. matter depends on mind in one case and that mind depends on matter in the other.

The "Butterfly Effect" is an example of order emerging from chaos. — Gnomon

No, just sensitive dependence on initial conditions. — jgill

Well, that too. :smile:

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Note -- Differences are the essence of meaningful Information (order).

This phenomenon, pioneered by Lorenz and others, has found widespread application as deterministic chaos.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/13/chaos-theory-the-butterfly-effect-and-the-computer-glitch-that-started-it-all/?sh=1fea912569f6
Note -- Determinism is the antithesis of True Chaos, and yet, apparent chaos can produce predictable consequences.

Does order come from chaos?
Chaos may indeed accumulate in a system over time as ordered structures break down, but at the same time order can continue to emerge from chaos within the system as long as energy is available to drive the chaotic processes which produce that order.
https://tasmaniantimes.com/2015/08/order-emerges-out-of-chaos-the-fundamental-d1/

The main dissentions seem based on claims like 'that's unlikely and here's why,' but nothing that convincingly proves Hameroff and Penrose wrong. — universeness

What predictions does the “theory” make that are testable? The arguments have so many free parameters that they evade specific criticism. As I say, Hameroff was quite happy to throw in microtubules using CA properties to bridge the problem of the thermal scale of quantum coherence. Speculation on top of speculation when the going got tough. It’s the game that crackpots play.

Again, the amusing thing is that this was the early 1990s and no-one thought biology had anything to do with QM. And now we can see how life really does harness decoherence and quantum tunnelling to get stuff done. That is a complete change in paradigm. Brains, being biology, depend on the same quantum mechanisms down at the nanoscale of molecular machinery. So it is neurobiology as well.

But this is actual science. It’s plausible given the constraints of quantum physics and is lab proven. The evidence exists and one happily changes one’s mind.

I did do a fuller post on how the body and brain do rely on quantum biology….

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/105999

On a more serious note, monism can be justified if we, Daniel Dennett style, say that the other offending opposite is an illusion. So declare the mind is an illusion and we have materialism; on the other hand, if we state that matter is an illusion, we have idealism. The other option is to assert the official positions of these two antithetical ideas i.e. matter depends on mind in one case and that mind depends on matter in the other. — Agent Smith

Yes, a common rhetorical tactic is to point the finger of stupidity at the "other" deluded "mind". In my experience though, those who "state that matter is an illusion" are a tiny minority of modern philosophers. Instead, today's idealists have no illusions that matter per se is imaginary. If they were that foolish, they could be disillusioned by running the idea we call a knife across their hand. Or by walking through a solid wall, as illustrated in the video below.

Plato had no "idea" of imaginative neural networks that function like a homunculous in the brain. He merely noted that the Idea of a thing is not a physical object. It's merely an immaterial construct of concepts, an imaginary representation of a thing seen, or an emergent property, or a system of many interacting things like "The United States". Those are Holistic Ideas. Perhaps, more common today is Pragmatic Idealism, which imagines a perfect Ideal, to serve as a goal for Ethical & Functional behavior. That's what Plato was talking about.

On this forum, Reductionists, who see no "physical evidence" for an immaterial Mind, are more common. Because they trust only what they see (vision), not what they think (reason). They have no use for immaterial Systems or functional Holism. So, they imagine the so-called "Mind" as, not a homunculus, nor a Cartesian observer, but as a knowing Neural Net. Which of those imaginary IDEAS is REAL? Hint : none of them. :cool:


Pragmatic Idealism ... Every decision a person makes stems from the person's values and goals. People can have many different goals and values;
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html
Note -- what is the substance of "goals" & "values"?

THAT WALL IS NOTHING BUT AN ILLUSORY IDEA IN YOUR IDEA OF A MIND

https://youtu.be/zsHBoXfvh-8

NEURONS IMAGINED AS CARTESIAN OBSERVER


SMART MATTER ???
SHOW ME THE MEANING

All this Sturm und Drang about mind-body dualism, if that is what we're talking about, in my humble opinion, can be chalked up to a simple fact:

THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER. — Multivac

We must then resort to speculation, not the wild kind but one guided by reason. In a way we're exploring the possibility space until, sometime in the future, we manage to find conclusive evidence that would settle the question once and for all.