Elemental Mind

As a biologist I am amused by Herbert's lack of understanding of living organisms. He says, "The commonsense belief that stars, rocks, and atoms are unconscious has no real scientific basis." He also seems to feel the same way about life. Who are we to say a rock is not alive?

Within the first few dozen pages of Herbert's books the number of silly statements have multiplied beyond easy enumeration. Examples: check out his total incomprehension of "reductionistic materialism" and marvel at how utterly mysterious biological processes like life and consciousness can become when you start by denying that they are made possible by chemical reactions inside living organisms.

I fear for all of the sensitive young minds who might read this drivel and be influenced by it. As for the "mature" physics crowd (and here we must include Penrose) that propagates this kind of stuff, I feel that we need a house cleaning. Who will challenge these bozos?Ê Murray Gell-Mann is one physicist who is not afraid to point out the silliness of jokers like Herbert who spout their hair-brained quantum mechanical "explanations" of everything from the paranormal to consciousness, flatly calling it all "flapdoodle". Read Alwyn Scott for about as balanced a presentation on quantum conciousness as you can get from a physical scientist. Crick and Edelman have both voiced the incredulity felt by biologists over the whole quantum consciousness craze. I would also point to E. O. Wilson and his book Consilience as a presentation of the true meaning of reductionistic materialism and the idea the we can climb the stairway to the mind from physics to chemistry to biology and right on to the complexities of human society.

A biology of consciousness, my dear Herbert. Now that is elementary.

Go to John's Book Page.

Go to John's Home Page.