[CamperBob2]

Penrose's argument isn't rational itself, so I don't see why a rational argument should be required in order to dismiss it. As CuriouslyC points out, quantum consciousness is the equivalent of Newton's dalliances with alchemy and astrology.

[an0malous]

Maybe you could briefly describe and steelman his argument as a show of good faith instead of just denouncing it because it’s “equivalent with alchemy and astrology.” My understanding is that it’s very rational, it’s based on mathematical proofs.

[BobaFloutist]

Mathematical proofs don't really apply to anything outside of math, since they require a certainty in your assumptions that's not replicable in the real world. At the end of the day, all a mathematical proof can tell you is "If P then Q," which just shifts the question from Q to P.

[CamperBob2]

That's not how this works. Why don't you ask me to steelman Newton, too?

As for models, the map is not the territory. There is no valid mathematical model that proves that quantum woo is a prerequisite for consciousness. If Penrose thinks otherwise, Penrose is wrong. He can go get a Vitamin C shot from Linus Pauling, debate the relationship between HIV and AIDS with Kary Mullis, or talk race relations with William Shockley.