Anders Sandberg wrote:
> It should be noted that their neurobiological arguments are also
> considered bull by neuroscientists.
Well, what I know of neurology goes down at most to neurotransmitters, vesicles, and the like - nowhere near microtubule dimers - so I can't judge on my own.
That said, unless somebody is screaming about a gross factual inaccuracy, I don't mind that other neurobiologists consider their conclusions wildly speculative or extremely improbable. Penrose and Hameroff are both established, respectable scientists and I'm very much inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to citing non-computable-looking facts about physics or neurology. Of course, I completely disagree with the way they draw their conclusions, but...
Besides which, they could be flat wrong and it wouldn't make much of a difference from my perspective. They're just the major pair even talking about the details of noncomputability; that's why I refer to them.
-- firstname.lastname@example.org Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html http://pobox.com/~sentience/singul_arity.html Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you everything I think I know.