From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!wupost!uunet!psinntp!cambridge.oracorp.com!ian Mon Jan  6 10:29:54 EST 1992
Article 2425 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:1645 sci.logic:701 sci.math:5371 comp.ai.philosophy:2425
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!wupost!uunet!psinntp!cambridge.oracorp.com!ian
>From: ian@cambridge.oracorp.com (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <1991Dec28.024402.22612@cambridge.oracorp.com>
Keywords: the limits of human understanding: no such thing
Organization: ORA Corp, 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139
References: <1991Dec23.135321.6894@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Dec27.051804.6985@cambridge.oracorp.com> <1991Dec27.184248.6939@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 91 02:44:02 GMT

In article <1991Dec27.184248.6939@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>Why shouldn't a neuron be capable of
>infinitely many distinguishable states?

I didn't say it couldn't.  I asked you what YOU believe.

>Finally, I believe that the human mind is fundamentally non-algorithmic, so
>the question of an oracle is effectively moot.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nonalgorithmic".  Let me ask you this:
is there some argument for human minds being nonalgorithmic that would
not apply as well to a machine?
-- 
Ian Sutherland                          ian@cambridge.oracorp.com

Sans peur


