Re:Consciousness as a State of Matter (2014)
by djtriptych on Tuesday April 25, 2017 @09:23PM
(#14199756)
Unless this vision can be directly disproven, why should anyone attach labels like "grandiose" or "nonsense" or "empty"?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Consciousness as a State of Matter (2014)
by irickt on Tuesday April 25, 2017 @10:13PM
(#14199960)
It's a fair question. The quote is one reviewer's opinion. I posted it without explanation as context for the paper.
A more neutral warning is that Tegmark has moved from conventional science towards untestable speculation. That and the fact that he has cultivated funding sources more aligned with the occult than with science has left many of his peers seemingly resentful.
Re:Consciousness as a State of Matter (2014)
by abritinthebay on Tuesday April 25, 2017 @10:12PM
(#14199955)
That's the exact opposite of the correct approach.
Unless it can be proven (and he doesn't, at all, prove his case) then there is no reason to not describe it as such.
(Grandiose is the exception - that's a stylistic judgement and quite apt here, irrespective of its truth value)
Re:Consciousness as a State of Matter (2014)
by derrickdirge on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @08:06AM
(#14202270)
Can you think of something that's sufficiently 'disproven' so as to make those labels appropriate?