"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com> writes:
> 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.
Exactly. This is why microtubules look so weird, and they have to postulate downright odd ways for quantum coherency to spread. The latest paper I saw contained gap junctions galore, and I'm fairly certain they aren't *that* common in the brain.
> 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...
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y