In article ,
Steve Haigh wrote:

No. It slightly goes against the grain to recommend anything by
Richard Dawkins (he is widely regarded as a pain in the a*** by
other scientists)

Not by any scientists I know. I don't know many zoologists and
biologists though, so maybe in his own area he not so well thought off.
Is there a reason for this, has he upset them in some way or is it just
because he's famous?

It is because of his self-publicity and dogmatism.

, but his books do explain how this for of thing
develops without consciousness.

They do indeed.

Even his opponents admit that he is not a fool, his ideas are not
demented, and he can write fairly well.

Roger Penrose also wrote a couple of excellent book on conciousness
called "Shadows of the Mind" and "The Emperor's New Mind".

Er, watch out. He is widely regarded as having flipped his lid when
he retired from real mathematics to ride his hobbyhorses. Those
books may LOOK good but, if you know enough about the area to tell
flannelling from science, you are less impressed.

In particular, his claim that human consciousness is not subject to
the Turing/Goedel limits is unjustified and his evidence fallacious.
And his theory of quantum gravity being the source of consciousness
is reminiscent of L. Ron Hubbard.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.