Comment by bawolff

> So you’re saying that being a Nobel laureate is a counter signal for scientific credibility?

A very mild one, but yes. Particularly for things outside the field they got the nobel for. I think this applies to fame in general.

> I mean there’s the whole field of mathematics and most of modern physics that use mathematical proofs instead of experiments, including the main article this thread is on

Math is not science. It does not deal with things that depend on the real world. Consciousness is a phenomenon that allegedly actually exists in the real world. It is not a polynomial.

I dont see the relavence. Penrose didn't provide a mathamatical proof. In fact from first principles it seems like any pure math proof of properties of conciousness would be impossible.

> I’m arguing that it’s unscientific to call a theory bullshit because it sounds “woo” or “new age.”

Taken literally, sure i would agree with you. However usually when people make claims like this, what they are really saying is that its not a scientific theory so there is nothing to discuss.

What does penrose's theory predict? Is it testable? Has anyone tested it? If the answer is no then there is no merits to debate.