From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!asylum.utah.edu!tolman Mon May 25 14:06:08 EDT 1992
Article 5732 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!asylum.utah.edu!tolman
>From: tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: Re: penrose
Date: 18 May 92 19:44:16 MDT
Message-ID: <1992May18.194416.27171@hellgate.utah.edu>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
References: <2524@ucl-cs.uucp> <1992May1.025230.8835@news.media.mit.edu> <1992May6.220605.26774@unixg.ubc.ca> <1992May8.015202.10792@news.media.mit.edu>

In article <1992May8.015202.10792@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

>Now here's one of the things worng with what follows.  Penrose
>presents a proof of Godel's theorem, shows how to make a godel
>sentence (with no proof in the system) and then uses "Insight" to
>argue that the sentence must be True.  Then, of course, we can append
>this as an axiom of a large system, etc., ad infinitum.  Then folllows a
>song-and-dance about how these insights cannot be "systematized" by
>any algorithm.  I cannot follow this argument, which is based on a new

If you cannot follow this argument, check out Hilbert's attempt to do it,
the Entsheidungsproblem.  (The very problem Turing was trying to solve)
Then check out why algorithms are incapable of it.

Algorithms are fundamentally incomplete.  Turing machines are fundamentally
incomplete.  Think.

(oddly, Penrose himself suggests a possible answer to this in a totally
different source, but never makes the connection that he answered it.
This is because other people's work is not questioned adequately, and
some fundamental assumptions appear to be wrong.)



