Consciousness and Penrose's new theory of quantum mechanics

The Forbes article clearly states Penrose is a physicalist:

Yeah, I don't think the author really understands what that means when they apply the label to Penrose.

If Penrose explicitly rejected his past Platonist statements I would be fine with that, but I would be quite surprised if this were the case as he has leaned toward Platonism, if not endorsed it outright, for decades.

Yeah, I don't think the author really understands what that means when they apply the label to Penrose.

If Penrose explicitly rejected his past Platonist statements I would be fine with that, but I would be quite surprised if this were the case as he has leaned toward Platonism, if not endorsed it outright, for decades.

Well, RP also appears on that Why Are We Here website and you might like to read his contribution which includes the following quote, as per your point about Platonism:

RP: Yes, certainly. I am definitely sympathetic to all three of the Platonic ideals. The truth one, which I'm taking as the pure, necessary truth, I think that's an absolute thing. And when it comes to beauty, well, you see, I would say there is a great subjectivity to beauty, and there's no doubt about that. But I would say there's a kernel of truth to all that which is independent of people. And I really sort of argue that great music can be great in itself, not just because people appreciate it.

David: And the moral?

RP: And then the moral, I would see even more so, probably. But, you see, this is an interesting question, because one of the things I spent a lot of time worrying about has been the issue of consciousness. And so I have these three worlds in a sense: you have the mathematical world, and then the physical world here. And the laws of physics seemed to be governed by mathematics, but it's only a part of the mathematical world, as far as we know, which governs the laws of physics. And it's only a part of the physical world, as far as we know, which has conscious experiences.

Well, RP also appears on that Why Are We Here website and you might like to read his contribution which includes the following quote, as per your point about Platonism:

It would certainly seem that Penrose maintains himself on some sort of tipping point between materialism and some sort of Platonism that would include the high probability of an intelligent Cause and the independence of the human mind and consciousness from the material. This is because of the clear implications of these beliefs, such as where he considers Truth, Beauty and Moral Laws to be absolute basic aspects of reality. Well, these things are both immaterial and have meanings, and accordingly, inexorably, are aspects of consciousness and intelligence. Therefore by clear implication his (tended toward holding) belief system includes the belief that consciousness is not tied to physical matter and energy and therefore may constitute an immaterial spirit that inhabits the physical brain but does not exist because of matter and energy. Leading to the strong possibility of an afterlife. 

It's just that he doesn't appear to have thought through all the implications.

It would certainly seem that Penrose maintains himself on some sort of tipping point between materialism and some sort of Platonism that would include the high probability of an intelligent Cause and the independence of the human mind and consciousness from the material. This is because of the clear implications of these beliefs, such as where he considers Truth, Beauty and Moral Laws to be absolute basic aspects of reality. Well, these things are both immaterial and inexorably are aspects of consciousness and intelligence. Therefore by clear implication his (tended toward holding) belief system includes the belief that consciousness is not tied to physical matter and energy and therefore may constitute an immaterial spirit that inhabits but does not exist because of matter and energy. Leading to the strong possibility of an afterlife. 

It's just that he doesn't appear to have thought through all the implications.

Haven't watched it yet but your post made me curious, found this ->




Will be watching it later, but for now can't really say anything about it...

...

It's just that he doesn't appear to have thought through all the implications.

I'm not sure I would accuse someone of his mental capacity of not thinking through implications. What I would rather assume is that he has a well-developed worldview which is based on his scientific research and he is very cautious about straying too far from that well-trodden path. I guess that is something that faces all scientists, particularly physicists, if they have to balance their intuition with the prevailing paradigm. That paradigm is more restrictive today than it was in the time of Einstein and Heisenberg, for example. Those great minds could muse openly about philosophical implications without attracting the outrage of the church of materialism that we have today.