1
$\begingroup$

Why did Stephen Hawking feels that Penrose's statement on quantum consciousness is too much of a stretch?

This is a classical reductionist argument. Humans are made by atoms, atoms are made by smaller subparticles that are all governed by the law of quantum mechanics. In the light of this, why would it be too much of a stretch to say that all of our daily activities are governed by quantum phenomenon?

$\endgroup$

closed as primarily opinion-based by CuriousOne, John Rennie, rob, Danu, Brandon Enright Dec 17 '14 at 8:18

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ It is impossible for anybody but Hawking to know what Hawking feels. Apart from that, of course, the "quantum mind" concept is unscientific mumbo-jumbo that has absolutely nothing to do with physics. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Dec 17 '14 at 6:49
  • $\begingroup$ Penrose believes there are an exchange of a particular particle in the pyramidal neurons that effects how thoughts are generated...it is too much for me to consume at the moment $\endgroup$ – Carlos - the Mongoose - Danger Dec 17 '14 at 6:50
  • $\begingroup$ If that is what Penrose believes, then it's time to conclude that Penrose has lost his mind. Given his advanced biological age that would be perfectly possible. Too bad, he used to be a very smart guy. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Dec 17 '14 at 6:53
  • $\begingroup$ It's not too much of a stretch to think that you can't model how the mind works with classical methods CuriousOne is it? That being said I don't think QM wouldd be the full story either, just a way better model than classical ones. $\endgroup$ – Skyler Dec 17 '14 at 7:08
  • $\begingroup$ @CuriousOne Penrose has had various of these weird hypotheses about the brain over the years. I believe he remains an extremely smart guy, but he's fallen prey to the Lucas argument (a logical fallacy if ever there was one) and needs his equivalent of Descartes' pineal gland to make his world-view consistent. $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Dec 17 '14 at 7:22