Criticisms to Functionalism : Quantum Fallacies

Here I dissect one of Stuart Hameroff's interviews and his criticisms of a functionalist perspective. I feel Hameroff grossly misrepresents the functionalist position and his arguments contain many logical flaws. He is still stuck in quasi-Cartesian thinking and his dialogue reflects these assumptions. I do not feel I took Mr. Hameroff out of context and would have addressed a few more of his points. I encourage you to check out the interview for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4y8mTRqXAo

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Consciousness
• AI
• Penrose
• Hameroff
• Quantum
• Coherence
• microtubules
• functionalism
• emergence

[hyperseauton]

since you have NOT reacted to my serious concerns as expressed in my comments about your philosophy, I challenge you, Lord:

Hameroff was NOT straw-personing you in saying you state somewhere if you add an additional neuron conciousness arises or at least you have to account for the consitency there.

I think Hameroff is actually CORRECT, as crazy it this may sound, have you considered that?

[dvorazhe]

you say that "to suppose that something at such a macro-size could exist in quantum coherent states for any reasonable amout of time is literally just unthinkable" but quantum coherence has been shown in green plants & probably accounts for their photosynthetic efficiency.

-- in other words, when you say "literally unthinkable" you are making a statement about yourself, not the evidence.

[dvorazhe]

@therazdow: components of the microtubule (filaments) are less than 10x the size of a chlorophyll molecule.

[applestar27]

your just making claims...but your doing exactly what Stuart is doing...lol

[JohananRaatz]

@LordImmolation "minds changing quantum fluctuations"."

What about Henry Stapp's work with the Zeno effect? If you combine Orch-OR with the Zeno effect then you get a sort of circular self-directing method of skewing the wave-function, similar to what Beck and Eccles call "quantal selection."

Now Hameroff did assume we have free-will, but I don't see this as particularly problematic. Free-will is a property of the mind we are self-aware of from the start. The whole point is to explain it.

[JohananRaatz]

"He is still stuck in quasi-Cartesian thinking"

But Cartesian thinking regarding consciousness (though not substance dualism) is correct A PRIORI. The reason for this is that it's the starting point for studying the mind. The mind = the Cartesian ego, so if you haven't explained the Cartesian ego you haven't explained the mind.

Now a lot of people deny the Cartesian ego exists, but then these same people can't claim to have explained the mind -they just denied it.

[dancingwithcalvin]

This guy is just a AI comic book reader, pay him no mind.

[deskset24]

Please focus and zoom the camera in on the poster on the wall in the back featuring the 4 women in white bikinis! I need my consciousness raised.

[Jessewb]

@FxDaCosta1

I'd say things are relative, from a human perspective, I have to assume for the sake of practicality that I actually have freedom of choice, only because I can't predict and do not know what every single particle of my brain is doing.

However from an "absolute" perspective there is no free choice based on the cause and effect universe we live in.

I once heard that the Universe was discovering itself, but I digress, I think life is more about us discovering ourselves as observers.

[DrDeist]

Good work. You're bright. Gave you a thumb up.

[theRazdow]

@dvorazhe that's within a chlorophyll molecule, which is much smaller

[FxDaCosta1]

@LordImmolation You are absolutely right in my opinion. Living in a world of cause and effect, it seems that even in our will decisions, we are not free. However I still have a very strong feeling of freedom in my actions when it comes to good and evil, as long as I am in my right mind, under no influence of any sort. Have you come across any explanation of that, or do you think that we are not "free" beings?