*you're

(Puts on douchey sunglasses and plays generic electric guitar sounds)

From wiki

He won lots of awards. He’s smart.

Have you read those books?

I've read Shadows Of The Mind. Haven't bought his more recent stuff.

Was it reasonably accessible?

I'd say that between that one and its predecessor from '89 The Emperor's New Mind that you'd find a lot of it enjoyable. He was way ahead of the curve even back then.

Your argument isn't clear enough to me to judge it. You're saying that you think consciousness is more than an accumulation of instincts and chemical processes in the brain because observation changes the outcome of a double-slit experiment? What are Penrose's arguments?

Then why did you judge it?

I’m just repeating what Ant said but if merely observing something alters the outcome it’s a reasonable assumption that there’s something to consciousness that extends beyond biology (or at least biology that resembles anything we understand to be biology).

I strongly lean in the other direction but that’s all the more reason to explore that argument.

Sorry if I stepped on your toes or misrepresented you Ant.

This article is a good starting point and summation of Penrose's core argument.

Letter: Quantum theory may explain the soul


You didn't misrepresent me at all, so don't worry about it.

I'm not expecting a lot of agreement with my viewpoints here, but I'm just putting it out there that some fairly brilliant people have looked at this and continue to make compelling cases that are relevant to the greater discourse surrounding the subject of human consciousness.

Consider this: what if measurements are recorded, but not observed during the experiment? No consciousness is present to interfere, however, we can safely assume the interference pattern would be disturbed when the measurements are checked afterwards.
Basically, much too little is understood about quantum mechanics conceptually to make any claims about its implications on consciousness

Edit: thanks, will read. @hawk: I judged his statement, not his arguments for it.

The only thing that this article mentions is a hypothesis about microtubule vibrations (?), no arguments. No mention of the double slit experiment either

Edit: I found this article about this topic:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...about-reality/