142583Re: [evol-psych] Re: Life after death: Dr Stuart Hameroff
- Nov 4 2:07 PMYes Penrose does have some flaky views on a variety of subjects but I think it's a massive distortion of his position to suggest he believes anything quite this silly.Don is quite right to reference Hume on this point. Hume's clarity of thought is quite breathtaking. For a lad of 16 to start a work, The Treatise that 10 years later had provided the foundation of modern thinking on so many areas of human understanding is truly astonishing. One can clearly see the influence of Hume in the writings of some of the most clear and perceptive modern thinkers such as Dawkins and Dennett.WadeOn 3 November 2012 23:40, Don Zimmerman <dwzimm@...> wrote:--- In email@example.com, Wade <wmaillist@...> wrote:DWZ:
> That intelligent men of the calibre of Penrose can believe such fantasy
> twaddle astounds me. That Nils laps it up comes as no surprise whatsoever
All reports of miraculous events can be subjected to a simple test suggested originally, I believe, by David Hume. You first assess the likelihood that the remarkabe event actually occurred, which usually would mean that basic laws of physics involving gravitation, momentum, etc., were violated. Next, you assess the likelihood that the event did not occur, that is, that the report was inaccurate or fraudulent, the reporter was self-serving, running a scam, insane, whatever.
Almost without exception the second probability would exceed the first. A similar principle might be applied to a report such as the present case. What is the probability that Penrose actually believes this fantasy? And what is the probability that the report about Penrose believing it is inaccurate? Assessing probabilities no doubt is difficult, but I know where my bet lies!
Donald W. Zimmerman
Vancouver, BC, Canada
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>