From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!ispd-newsserver!psinntp!cambridge.oracorp.com!ian Tue Jan 21 09:26:46 EST 1992
Article 2845 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:2845 sci.philosophy.tech:1890
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!ispd-newsserver!psinntp!cambridge.oracorp.com!ian
>From: ian@cambridge.oracorp.com (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <1992Jan17.190627.24296@cambridge.oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corp, 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139
References: <1992Jan13.192559.7488@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Jan14.194748.14755@cambridge.oracorp.com> <1992Jan15.115855.7592@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 19:06:27 GMT

In article <1992Jan15.115855.7592@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In philosophy, the only erroneous argument is an invalid argument.
>Penrose's arguments are valid, and so are mine.  If they fail to convince
>you, it's because your intuitions differ.  My intuition is that my mind can
>completely capture the notion of finiteness.  You are welcome to your own
>intuitions.  End of this discourse.

Ah, I see.  You're not actually giving an argument, you're just making
assertions.  Indeed, let us end this "discourse".
-- 
Ian Sutherland                          ian@cambridge.oracorp.com

Sans peur


