I had to look him up . . . not one I focus on in my intro classes . . .
not sure if I am answering your question, or not.
BTW, a dogpile list of stuff on him is here:
He was clever in his research methods.
His contentions seem plausible enough.
He may be overly reductionistic for my taste . . . though if I understand aright, he is almost postulating in later stuff a ‘mind’ beyond the synapses.
I do strongly believe that many VERY SUBTLE NUANCE STUFF is perceived and acted on at unconscious and barely conscious levels toward very great impact on the individual and on their relationships and actions.
If I haven’t gotten near your question, please ask a more specific one.
Thx.
I wouldn’t want to discuss specifics on his work on this forum, but his method of combining subjective report with experimental objective data seems like a fair attempt to bridge a gap that mainline physical science doesn’t address. The threads about recent brain scans seem to be along this line but aren’t getting to the crux of the matter. The physical scientists such as Penrose are missing the point, I believe. Should subjective report and objective data be combined, or would this no longer be considered scientific?