Except when he's rambling about quantum consciousness or other nonsense, which happens a lot nowadays.
We need physicists to come up with and develop novel ideas to consider no matter how many of them might be entirely wrong.
That does not follow at all.
I don't know Penrose's view deeply enough to defend it further (view which I for the record do not share).
Many phenomenon emerge from randomness with very high probability just because the law of large number.
Grossly simplifying: he is a dualist, he wants to reconcile his belief in the soul and his physicist's materialist view of biology, so he resorts to putting the source of consciousness in quantum phenomenas, and seeks to prove that they occur in the brain. I disagree that there's an immaterial soul, I disagree that it puppets the material universe through quantum phenomenas, and I disagree that there are important quantum phenomenas in the brain. Most physicists are with me on these.
I think he should look for consciousness as the source of quantum phenomena. Not the other way around. But as he is a physicist, all nails looks like a physics problem.
It is the same situation where people might have struggled to explain the heavenly observation using an earth centric model. Once you invert the wrong premise that you consider as fundamental, the answer, previously so elusive, becomes trivial...
Because I hardly think so.
This is not like alternative medicine where there is harm for people who don't follow the mainstream. And I stress again that Penrose (in the interviews I saw) doesn't actually claim that he absolutely has to be right.
No of course not, people should be free to discuss and believe in dualism. What I find regrettable, is how often Penrose's name is invoked in an appeal to authority, as if his past (and very valuable) contributions to physics were enough to make him right on everything, including this subject.
Ultimately, I believe dualism is wrong, and I believe I have good reasons to think so. My previous comment was simply my attempt at deconstructing Penrose's argument, participating in the ever-ongoing popular debate.
That may be so, but just the mention of Penrose's name in the context of something else caused you to start a whole subthread that had nothing to do with the subject.
> "Any explanation by Roger Penrose is bound to be good"
Is something wrong with my original comment?
Can you tell me why it is non-sense?
We, through our senses perceive a world. This world we try to understand using physics. But these perceptions itself stands on top of consciousness. So consciousness is at least, as real as the world that physics conventionally tries to reason about. It could be even more fundamental, because you can have only consciousness in this universe, but still could sense a whole universe with "things" inside it. But without consciousness, and just a universe with "things", there is no "sensing"...
Point is, physics should include study of consciousness...
There’s plenty of evidence for unconscious perception.
Damn Deepak Chopra and his ilk of idiots for making any conversation of quantum mechanics and biology tinged with pseudoscience. Hopefully we’ll keep getting experimental evidence as we go that it’s not at all absurd to consider quantum effects in biology.
That said, those effects are going to look nothing like sustained coherence for long periods of time.