David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Consciousness Studies 2 (2):98-111 (1995)
Grush and Churchland (1995) attempt to address aspects of the proposal that we have been making concerning a possible physical mechanism underlying the phenomenon of consciousness. Unfortunately, they employ arguments that are highly misleading and, in some important respects, factually incorrect. Their article ‘Gaps in Penrose’s Toilings’ is addressed specifically at the writings of one of us (Penrose), but since the particular model they attack is one put forward by both of us (Hameroff and Penrose, 1995; 1996), it is appropriate that we both reply; but since our individual remarks refer to different aspects of their criticism we are commenting on their article separately. The logical arguments discussed by Grush and Churchland, and the related physics are answered in Part l by Penrose, largely by pointing out precisely where these arguments have already been treated in detail in Shadows of the Mind (Penrose, 1994). In Part 2, Hameroff replies to various points on the biological side, showing for example how they have seriously misunderstood what they refer to as ‘physiological evidence’ regarding to effects of the drug colchicine. The reply serves also to discuss aspects of our model ‘orchestrated objective reduction in brain microtubules – Orch OR’ which attempts to deal with the serious problems of consciousness more directly and completely than any previous theory
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Mark Balaguer (2009). Why There Are No Good Arguments for Any Interesting Version of Determinism. Synthese 168 (1):1 - 21.
Similar books and articles
Stuart R. Hameroff (1998). More Neural Than Thou (Reply to Churchland). In S. Ameroff, Alfred W. Kaszniak & A. C. Scott (eds.), Toward a Science of Consciousness Ii: The 1996 Tucson Discussions and Debates. Mit Press.
Rick Grush & Patricia Smith Churchland (1995). Gaps in Penroses Toiling. Journal of Consciousness Studies 2 (1):10-29.
Stuart R. Hameroff (2001). Biological Feasibility of Quantum Approaches to Consciousness: The Penrose-Hameroff 'Orch Or' Model. In P. Loockvane (ed.), The Physical Nature of Consciousness. John Benjamins.
Stuart R. Hameroff & Roger Penrose (1996). Orchestrated Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: A Model for Consciousness. In Stuart R. Hameroff, Alfred W. Kaszniak & A. C. Scott (eds.), Toward a Science of Consciousness. MIT Press.
Per Lindstrom (2006). Remarks on Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):231-237.
David J. Chalmers (1996). Minds, Machines, and Mathematics. Psyche 2:11-20.
Stuart R. Hameroff (1998). "Funda-Mentality": Is the Conscious Mind Subtly Linked to a Basic Level of the Universe? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2 (4):119-124.
Rick Grush & P. Churchland (1995). Gaps in Penrose's Toiling. In Thomas Metzinger (ed.), Journal of Consciousness Studies. Ferdinand Schoningh. 10-29.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads56 ( #34,808 of 1,689,894 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #183,486 of 1,689,894 )
How can I increase my downloads?