You have a view and it informs your rhetoric. I hope it's not a disservice to you to suggest this is standpoint where essentially 'we' know all about the universe and everything in it. Details? We'll flesh those out as we go along but basically the game is over - in the grand scheme of things. Put another way, the view here is that Hoyle's Black Cloud (the story where a vast mass of gases has condensed into a thinking being totally eclipsing human mental capabilities) is just like us but has just gone much further than we have gone on a well-beaten philosophical path. This is not the place for further discourse but I don't buy it.
> I hope it's not a disservice to you to suggest this is standpoint where essentially 'we' know all about the universe and everything in it
Like I said I have no business talking about philosophy or spiritualism. However, since you asked: that's not at all what I meant. In fact, it's the opposite way around. I'm of the opinion just because we don't know something, this shouldn't give people a license to invent things from whole cloth and assert them as facts (which is exactly what Penrose does).
We're still waiting on proof of anything supernatural, and explaining things with materialism has served us super well. It's not unreasonable to assume it's going to continue to be a good tool for understanding the world.
I believe Penrose's core argument fits the description of a rhetorical device called argument from incredulity. He is incredulous how "consciousness" could ever arise from mere molecules interacting with each other. To me, everything he built up on top of this is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty, but I acknowledge that this is born out of a certain bias on my end.
